Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

[rousseau]

Maybe, maybe not. But is there any harm in trying to mitigate the impact? What if we do nothing and we could have changed it's course?

Life by it's very definition is uncertain and subject to probability, our job is to do our best to react to environmental changes. Climate change would be an environmental change that it makes sense to react to.

Your response is a win for the people that TSwizzle is acting as an ignorant mouthpiece for. You are conceding that climate change is maybe not happening. A modicum of research will show you that it is happeningn

No I wasn't conceding climate change wasn't happening. I was conceding the point that it's possible we might not be able to do much about it. I added, though, that to not try is just a dumb viewpoint.

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are also sitting on a powder keg with the Tundra about to thaw and emit very large amounts of stored CO2 from the bacterial decomposition of that stored organic matter. Further down the road will be the realease of methane hydrates of the bottom of the ocean as it warms.

The potential of the release of methane hydrates (clathrates) to trigger displacement tsunamis is conscientiously ignored by the media, but could be a death blow to coastal communities. Of course the climate denyers will maintain their "c'est la vie" attitudes, even after any calamity - after all, there is evidence that 100'+ tsunamis have struck in the past... so no big deal.

It's ignored because the scientists don't talk about the effects--and they don't yet because the feedback loop is still too uncertain.

 

[blastula]

From the National Climate Assessment

In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years.

I appreciate the link but that isn't a research paper. This isn't science, it is opinion of whoever wrote the "summary" without even giving the name or credentials of who did write it that I have found. I am trying to find the actual research that this is supposed to be based on to see if the "summary" has any actual scientific basis. However the "certainty" expressed looks more like a Gorism than science.

It's written by scientists who are describing the current state of the field. And if you read further, they source the claims with handy links to papers. What do you disagree with about the claim anyway? Do you believe the earth would have been warming during that time? By the same actual amount?

 

[blastula]

Why is not changing because of humans? And try to answer without repeating the fallacy that it's because it has changed before without humans. We're talking about why it's changing right now, not some other time.

Climate has always fluctuated, that's not a fallacy, it's a fact.

That's not what I said was a fallacy, and it doesn't answer the question.

Alarmists are obsessed with this one point in time about a small fluctuation that has occurred any number of times in the past and will occur again in the future. Bonkers.

"Small?" Compared to what?

Another stupid fallacy is to say that since climate changed in the past, any change now is harmless and merits no concern.

 

[skepticalbip]

From the National Climate Assessment

In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years.

I appreciate the link but that isn't a research paper. This isn't science, it is opinion of whoever wrote the "summary" without even giving the name or credentials of who did write it that I have found. I am trying to find the actual research that this is supposed to be based on to see if the "summary" has any actual scientific basis. However the "certainty" expressed looks more like a Gorism than science.

It's written by scientists

Really? I looked for a bi-line giving their name and credentials but didn't find one. Who were they? The writing style seemed closer to that of a journalist than that of a climatologist to me.

who are describing the current state of the field. And if you read further, they source the claims with handy links to papers.

Yes I saw the reference notes to a study that supposedly linked to the papers the study was based on but haven't found the study yet much less the papers.

What do you disagree with about the claim anyway? Do you believe the earth would have been warming during that time? By the same actual amount?

I disagree with the absolute certainty the claim was presented with. Climatology is a damn new science and there are a hell of a lot of known unknowns, then there are the unknown unknowns. There is no current model that explains all the fluctuations in global temperature during the Holocene so it would be impossible to predict what global temperature would be "if not for humanity".

Climatology has come a long way in the last forty years and has several models that try to explain and predict various aspects of climate, some more successfully than others but none are close to being reasonably reliable yet.

 

[blastula]

The papers are not hard to find. They give direct links, not just citations. Near the beginning of the main body, it says.

Over the last five decades, natural factors (solar forcing and volcanoes) alone would actually have led to a slight cooling (see Figure 2.3).²²

The 22 note links to this paper.
The figure 2.3 caption has a link to this paywalled paper but i found a free version here.

See fig. 1b and 3b of the first one, and see fig 3a of the second.

 

[skepticalbip]

The papers are not hard to find. They give direct links, not just citations. Near the beginning of the main body, it says.

[FONT=&]Over the last five decades, natural factors (solar forcing and volcanoes) alone would actually have led to a slight cooling (see[/FONT] Figure 2.3[FONT=&]).[/FONT]²²

The 22 note links to this paper.
The figure 2.3 caption has a link to this paywalled paper but i found a free version here.

See fig. 1b and 3b of the first one, and see fig 3a of the second.

Thanks for the link. It is rather interesting in that it isn't actually so much a scientific study as it is an apology for their preferred model. In a scientific study, data is taken to test the model. In this paper, they assumed that the model is correct then modified the data to fit the model. They assert, without evidence, that the cooling effect of Krakatoa extended, apparently into the 21st century, to account for years of no global temperature increase while their model shows that it should have increased.

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you honestly believe that humans can control the climate to any significant effect ?

Maybe, maybe not. But is there any harm in trying to mitigate the impact?

Mitigating the impact of climate change is not the same are trying to control the climate through draconian measures that take us back to the dark ages.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The climate will always change, but if you're about to get hit by a car you at least try to get out of the way, you don't just wait to get hit.

Do you honestly believe that humans can control the climate to any significant effect ?

I don't think anyone's saying that it's being "controlled". But yes I do believe that it can be affected. You still haven't addressed my point that the only reason you know that the climate has changed in the past is because climate scientists told you so, and now climate scientists are telling you that humanity is changing it for the worse. Why do you believe the former but not the latter?

 

[TSwizzle]

Do you honestly believe that humans can control the climate to any significant effect ?

I don't think anyone's saying that it's being "controlled". But yes I do believe that it can be affected.

Controlled, influenced, affected, whatever.

You still haven't addressed my point that the only reason you know that the climate has changed in the past is because climate scientists told you so,

That's an assumption on your part.

and now climate scientists are telling you that humanity is changing it for the worse.

Not all of them. And those that do, are being a bit free and easy with the data. I do not believe that humans are having a catastrophic effect on climate as the alarmists make out. What we see happening to the climate is natural.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I don't think anyone's saying that it's being "controlled". But yes I do believe that it can be affected.

Controlled, influenced, affected, whatever.

If we are to have a good conversation, it is important that we understand the terms we are using.

You still haven't addressed my point that the only reason you know that the climate has changed in the past is because climate scientists told you so,

That's an assumption on your part.

Sorry, I had assumed you weren't old enough to have experienced climate change on geological timescales yourself. I guess I could be wrong, but I felt that was a fairly good assumption. I guess I also assumed that you weren't a climate scientist yourself, so please correct me if I'm wrong there as well.

and now climate scientists are telling you that humanity is changing it for the worse.

Not all of them. And those that do, are being a bit free and easy with the data. I do not believe that humans are having a catastrophic effect on climate as the alarmists make out. What we see happening to the climate is natural.

Well, the way to counter a scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is with another scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Forgive me if I don't accept one sentence platitudes as convincing.

 

[TSwizzle]

Controlled, influenced, affected, whatever.

If we are to have a good conversation, it is important that we understand the terms we are using.

Don't kid on you are trying to have a good conversation.

Sorry, I had assumed you weren't old enough to have experienced climate change on geological timescales yourself. I guess I could be wrong, but I felt that was a fairly good assumption. I guess I also assumed that you weren't a climate scientist yourself, so please correct me if I'm wrong there as well.

 

[bigfield]

Well, the way to counter a scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is with another scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

or...Common sense, which the world's climatologists are clearly lacking else they wouldn't have missed what is so obvious to climate skeptics.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sorry, I had assumed you weren't old enough to have experienced climate change on geological timescales yourself. I guess I could be wrong, but I felt that was a fairly good assumption. I guess I also assumed that you weren't a climate scientist yourself, so please correct me if I'm wrong there as well.

So, then, how exactly do you know that the climate has changed in the past?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the way to counter a scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is with another scientific argument presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

or...Common sense, which the world's climatologists are clearly lacking else they wouldn't have missed what is so obvious to climate skeptics.

Another unconvincing one sentence platitude.

 

[TSwizzle]

You don't understand sarcasm.

 

[DBT]

It would be surprising if human activity had no effect on climate over and above natural fluctuations.

 

[repoman]

It is not human activity, it is carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere which will cause globsl warming until a new setpoint is reached. Then global warming will stop.

But the sea level will be insanely higher by that time. 25 meters with the current 405 ppm and who know by the time all of the fossil fuels are burned.

This is not even taling into account carbon locked in permafrost and methane hydrates.

So enjoy kicking the can down the road and being an anti descendantist because we are leaving our descendants a world with flooded coastlines.

 

[JohnG]

The climate will always change, but if you're about to get hit by a car you at least try to get out of the way, you don't just wait to get hit.

Do you honestly believe that humans can control the climate to any significant effect ?

From the EPA:

In 2014, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,870 million metric tons (15.1 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents.

You tell me Mr. Incredulouspants, do you think these kinds of emissions year in year out (this is US only mind you) will have no effect on our atmosphere?

Scott Pruitt is correct in saying "Now is not the time to talk about climate change" - unfortunately the time was 20 years ago.

While we are debating climate change, governments on all levels are mitigating around the world. People who understand the scientific process are hard at work.

 

[JohnG]

It is not human activity

It is human activity. It is possible to separate CO2 that is a product of fossil fuel burning from non fossil fuel produced CO2. The carbon molecule is different. It is the fossil fuel emitted CO2 that is skyrocketing.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is not human activity

It is human activity. It is possible to separate CO2 that is a product of fossil fuel burning from non fossil fuel produced CO2. The carbon molecule is different. It is the fossil fuel emitted CO2 that is skyrocketing.

Please explain in what way the "carbon molecule" is different between CO2 that is a product of fossil fuel burning and that which is not.