Climate Change is the Big 2020 Issue

[Red]

Teo, what did we say about listening to consensus and not political think tanks, and to not trust your intuition?
Where are you getting this information from? And why are you trusting it over the scientists?

[PhilRisk]

I mean, the only way we can claim that is to assume that there is a large positive feedback loop between the level of water in the atmosphere and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that magnifies the effects of CO2 by around three times.
But the only evidence we have of that are the climate computer models, which we know are inaccurate. The vast majority of climate models predict the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth will decrease over time, when satellite measurements show it has increased. If they are wrong about the role of CO2 in determining the infrared radiation from the Earth, why assume they are right about the role of CO2 in determining the temperature of the Earth?
Furthermore, the warming is basically indiscernible when you look at the temperature records, it gets lost in the noise. See this diagram, for example.
How can anybody think warming that's indiscernible when you look at the diagrams (without using statistical methods, if it would be discernable even then without satellite and far-away-sea temperature data) is going to have serious impact on the ecology?
To me it seems the only thing discussing global warming does is fueling bad policies and making people forget the real problems that are facing ecology, such as super-bacteria.

It would be very nice to give some sources for your assertions.

I hope to clear same misconceptions.

1. The feedback loop with water vapor is present not only for CO2, but for any warming forcing. It is a well established feedback loop used as well to explain the paleo-history of earth climate. Hence, complex climate models are not the only evidence.
2.Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) is more complicated. Therefore, my answer might appear messy. Model do not all say, it would decrease. It depends upon the timescale you look at it and the feedback mechanisms. In the short time it will decrease, that is what all models agree upon. But as heat is accumulated the the outgoing radiation would catch up again, if concentrations would be stable. This is what prevents the earth from running hotter.
There is a valid scientific discussion on which different models disagree. But the discussion is not about, whether warming is happening and CO2 is causing it, but about the dominant feedback pathways. Some models say OLR will stay low and only recover slowly. Other say it would catch up quite quickly and actually rise, accompanied by feedback increasing the absorbed solar radiation.
Sorry, for the complicated stuff. The scientific explanation can be found at [https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/47/16700.full.pdf]. It is hard to understand, if you are not trained. But it is very interesting and I have to say, I did not knew how complicated it is, before I did a little research to answer your post. There is something to learn from this: If you see are seemingly simply point refuting established science, there probably is a scientific answer to your point. It is important to get research qualities and not stay unknown with only non-valid criticism.
3. Your graphic of indiscernible warming is just one location (Ottawa) and just a comparison of two years 1919 and 2019. That is not how to identify climate trends. The increase in Ontario has been roughly 1,5 °C [http://lamps.math.yorku.ca/OntarioClima ... m#section3]. Furthermore, your link is taken from a site which is obviously politically motivated for not accepting the science. Therefore, I suspect, that the location is not chosen without bias.

Take care

[teo123]

to not trust your intuition

Well, I am much more educated now, I have published papers in peer reviewed journals about two sciences. Therefore, my intuition (if that's what you like to call it) is better than that of the vast majority of people.

Where are you getting this information from?

Why does that matter? It should be easy to evaluate by somebody who has studied climate science. The truth of a statement is irrelevant to a person making that statement.

And why are you trusting it over the scientists?

And I am not. There doesn't appear to be a scientific consensus that the global warming is mostly caused by humans.

It would be very nice to give some sources for your assertions.

Well, those assertions should be easy to evaluate for somebody who is an expert in climate science.

The feedback loop with water vapor is present not only for CO2, but for any warming forcing.

As far as I understand that, no. The warming because of the Sun getting brighter is not predicted to lead to a feedback loop.

It is a well established feedback loop used as well to explain the paleo-history of earth climate

As far as I understand it, we know next to nothing about the history of the temperature of the Earth before the late 19th century. We need to rely on extremely unreliable indicators that show contradictory results. Was there a medieval warming period? If so, how hot it was? Was it as hot as today? Was it even hotter than today? Was there really a Roman warm period? If so, how hot it was back then? Was it as hot as today? Was it hotter than today? And it just gets worse the further you go into the past.

In the short time it will decrease, that is what all models agree upon

But this hasn't been observed. In fact, the infrared radiation from the Earth is increasing.

If you see are seemingly simply point refuting established science

But, as far as I understand it, there is no scientific consensus the greenhouse gasses we emit are what's mostly responsible for global warming. Scientists agree it's at least partly responsible, and that's all.

That is not how to identify climate trends.

@PhilRisk, warming is indiscernible even when you look at the raw data of the long-term temperature records. In fact, there appears to be a cooling trend.
Now, the apparent cooling trend is probably due to the time of observation bias and it disappears once you correct for it, but that doesn't change the point that the warming is indiscernible unless you are looking at the ocean temperatures or satellite data.

[Red]

Well, I am much more educated now,

Just because you're more educated about a subject doesn't mean you have authority to make such claims. I've taken history classes in high school, does that make me qualified to draw my own conclusions about certain historical events? I've also taken physics classes in college, does that give me liberty to make claims about physics? No.

I have published papers in peer reviewed journals about two sciences.

We've already talked about this.

Therefore, my intuition (if that's what you like to call it) is better than that of the vast majority of people.

Doesn't mean it's right.

I certainly know more about climate change than the average person, but I don't think I'm qualified to debate it (Phil is already taking your BS on).

Knowing more than the average person about a subject is a very, very low standard.

Why does that matter?

It matters because you're not an expert on this and you have to defer to those who know more than you. Climate science is far more intricate than you're making it out to be.

It should be easy to evaluate by somebody who has studied climate science. The truth of a statement is irrelevant to a person making that statement.

No, it isn't. This is reminding me of your flat earth arguments, when you talked about how simple it seems to you based on very limited knowledge, when in reality the matter is far more complicated than you're making it out to be since you're ignorant about how much you are unaware of. You're falling for the Dunning Kruger effect yet again.

The scientific process isn't taking some facts and jumbling them around in your head and making conclusions based off that.

And I am not. There doesn't appear to be a scientific consensus that the global warming is mostly caused by humans.

Yes there is. I've told you before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... ate_change

There is currently a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities.

[teo123]

Just because you're more educated about a subject doesn't mean you have authority to make such claims.

Which claims? The fact that the vast majority of climate models predict infrared radiation from the Earth will decrease, while it's actually been increasing? Isn't that easy to evaluate by somebody who knows climate science?

Knowing more than the average person about a subject is a very, very low standard.

Well, better that than being a politician or even a Wikipedia editor.

Climate science is far more intricate than you're making it out to be.

Then maybe we should stop pretending it's simple physics and settled enough to base policies on.
It's possible that global warming is anthropogenic, but we don't know for sure.

The scientific process isn't taking some facts and jumbling them around in your head and making conclusions based off that.

Well, as far as I can tell, much of it is. The vast majority of linguistics is like that. And quite a lot of computer science is like that.

Yes there is

And the evidence is a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia doesn't have a good track record of representing the opinions of the experts.

[Red]

Which claims? The fact that the vast majority of climate models predict infrared radiation from the Earth will decrease, while it's actually been increasing? Isn't that easy to evaluate by somebody who knows climate science?

It's better if you've had your education in it from professionals instead of learning a few facts and drawing blatantly false conclusions. Again, Dunning-Kruger effect.

It's fine to not know. It's not fine to assert that you do when you clearly don't.

Well, better that than being a politician or even a Wikipedia editor.

That first one is usually a lower standard, and I highly doubt you know more than Wikipedia editors on the subject.

Wikipedia, especially when it comes to topics that matter like science and history, are constantly edited by experts and grad students trying to one up each other.

Then maybe we should stop pretending it's simple physics

You're projecting, that's what you're doing.

and settled enough to base policies on.

I don't agree with what most politicians want to do about it either, and I do think many politicians are at least mislead about it.

It's possible that global warming is anthropogenic, but we don't know for sure.

Yes, we do.

Well, as far as I can tell, much of it is. The vast majority of linguistics is like that. And quite a lot of computer science is like that.

That explains why linguistics isn't really a science, but for real science, that doesn't apply. And computer science is more of an engineering discipline than a science (I highly doubt many Computer Scientists even know what the scientific method is).

And the evidence is a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia doesn't have a good track record of representing the opinions of the experts.

Since when? Wikipedia has a great track record when it comes to science. How convenient that you won't accept the Wikipedia article when it doesn't fit what you want to believe when you have had no issue citing it many times before.

It doesn't matter what I show you or how many articles (not from Wikipedia) I show you, no evidence will be good enough for you.

[brimstoneSalad]

The problematic assumption you make is, that moving into another area is unproblematic and the changes are continuous.

They don't have to be, these larger animals are intelligent and can adapt within their lifetimes quite a bit. How much do you think these zones are moving?

Let's take a moose living 20 years -- how many miles are we talking?

The movement speed of nature is not universal, especially for plant species.

It doesn't have to be, but these animals also carry these plants with them as their habitats move, whether in feces or on fur.

Whole ecosystems are not able to move with the speed of shifting zones.

I don't think they have to. You should be able to move a while tailed deer from North America to China or Australia or Argentina. Very few animals are highly dependent on one single food source like bamboo.

This could have quite a big impact on wildlife, because of mutual dependence in ecosystems.

I think you're overestimating those dependencies, particularly for the large long-lived animals we're talking about. Smaller species can go extinct without significant harm to individuals.

This is not just a problem for same small fraction, because all animals species depends upon specific ecosystems. Some can find new functional ecosystems, estimates are 20-50% of all species (animals and plants) who are endangered.

Mostly insects and flowering plants that depend on them for pollination I would imagine, and even those cases are likely overstated. What kind of animal suffering does that really involve?

Furthermore, not only zones are shifting in a continual manner, but there could be abrupt changes on the local level e. g. by increasing extreme weather (drought, heat, precipitation, storms).

I granted that already, but I'm not sure how significant that's going to be.

[teo123]

It's better if you've had your education in it from professionals

Have you watched John Stossel or PragerU interview some climate scientists, to hear what the professionals (who consider their views to be rather mainstream) actually say? Most of them say global warming is probably anthropogenic, but that we don't know for sure, and that it's very unlikely anything we do can reverse it. Patrick Michaels appears to be rather reasonable and well-educated about the topic.

It's fine to not know. It's not fine to assert that you do when you clearly don't.

And it's also not fine to support policies which supposedly address issues which you don't understand. Be it against global warming or pro net neutrality (every bit is not created equally on the Internet, that's just nonsense, most of the bits on the Internet are created by malware or useless crawlers, and ISPs should have every right to slow down traffic that's probably not useful) or any other hard-to-understand topic.

Wikipedia, especially when it comes to topics that matter like science and history, are constantly edited by experts

My friend, there are countless stories of academics being rejected from editing Wikipedia. Vaughan Bell is probably the most famous one.

Yes, we do.

But if it is, as you admit it, a very complicated empirical question, how can we possibly know for sure?

That explains why linguistics isn't really a science, but for real science, that doesn't apply. And computer science is more of an engineering discipline than a science (I highly doubt many Computer Scientists even know what the scientific method is).

Look, I am stunned that you don't see the absurdity in saying stuff like that. I've studied two widely respected sciences to a degree that I can publish peer-reviewed papers about them, and, when I say I disagree with what you are saying how science works, then you claim those sciences I've studied somehow aren't real sciences. What makes you think climate science operates differently than linguistics and computer science? Have you published peer reviewed papers about climate science? You probably haven't published peer-reviewed papers about any science at all, and you somehow have arrogance to suppose you know how different sciences work. It would be different if you were stating some obvious facts, like that astronomy and climate science don't rely on experiments, but you are making claims that only somebody with lots of experience publishing papers in those sciences could make.
You are kind of reminding me of @Sunflowers when (s)he supposed (s)he knows how physics works and what physics can or can't tell us, just because (s)he has studied some philosophy.

Wikipedia has a great track record when it comes to science.

In my experience, the information found on Wikipedia is rarely useful when it comes to linguistics, and it's hardly ever useful for computer science. But since you've never published a scientific paper, you probably don't see why. The information that can be found on Wikipedia is rarely the type of information you need. And when it is what you need, it's not presented in a way to be useful.

[Red]

Have you watched John Stossel or PragerU interview some climate scientists, to hear what the professionals (who consider their views to be rather mainstream) actually say? Most of them say global warming is probably anthropogenic, but that we don't know for sure, and that it's very unlikely anything we do can reverse it. Patrick Michaels appears to be rather reasonable and well-educated about the topic.

Ah yes, how can I forget PragerU and Stossel, both well known for their politically unbiased and objective media. Do you really not consider the possibility that these people distort the truth to fit their agenda?

Maybe you should start listening to actual scientists instead of political pundits? Or are you only interested in confirming what you want to believe?

There are gonna be loonies everywhere, even in science. You have to listen to the consensus. And after reading Patrick Michael's Wikipedia article, he does not seem reasonable at all. It's probably because his political views force him to suspend what he knows to be true.

And it's also not fine to support policies which supposedly address issues which you don't understand. Be it against global warming or pro net neutrality (every bit is not created equally on the Internet, that's just nonsense, most of the bits on the Internet are created by malware or useless crawlers, and ISPs should have every right to slow down traffic that's probably not useful) or any other hard-to-understand topic.

You're just as bad as these politicians then.

My friend, there are countless stories of academics being rejected from editing Wikipedia. Vaughan Bell is probably the most famous one.

You know, experts aren't always going to be someone you've heard of. If someone is banned from editing on Wikipedia, there's probably a good reason for it.

But if it is, as you admit it, a very complicated empirical question, how can we possibly know for sure?

Right back to your flat earth ways.

Just because you don't understand how it could possibly be doesn't mean we don't know. If you really cared about this matter, you should study it from actual experts.

What makes you think climate science operates differently than linguistics and computer science? Have you published peer reviewed papers about climate science?

They are all very, very different fields.

You probably haven't published peer-reviewed papers about any science at all, and you somehow have arrogance to suppose you know how different sciences work.

Well no, it's because I have the humility to know that I don't have any research worth publishing. We've already talked about how publishing scientific papers means very little.

I don't claim to know entirely how these sciences work, but I know the distinctions in terms of principle and methodology.

It would be different if you were stating some obvious facts, like that astronomy and climate science don't rely on experiments,

All science relies on experiments. The type of experiment may vary, but it's still all experimenting. It's one of the fundamental parts of the scientific method.

but you are making claims that only somebody with lots of experience publishing papers in those sciences could make.

I can't believe you have the audacity to say this after your comment on experiments.

You are kind of reminding me of @Sunflowers when (s)he supposed (s)he knows how physics works and what physics can or can't tell us, just because (s)he has studied some philosophy.

No buddy, that's you.

In my experience, the information found on Wikipedia is rarely useful when it comes to linguistics,

Well yeah because linguistics isn't really science. Though I wouldn't be surprised that if the stuff about linguistics on Wikipedia is true but you just don't agree with them.

and it's hardly ever useful for computer science.

I highly doubt that.

But since you've never published a scientific paper, you probably don't see why.

You're really reminding me of Sunflowers when he constantly bragged about being a philosopher and we all just were uneducated.

Stop being like this Teo, it's so petulant, and you're embarrassing yourself.

The information that can be found on Wikipedia is rarely the type of information you need. And when it is what you need, it's not presented in a way to be useful.

It's probably because you don't agree with it.

You've derailed this thread enough Teo. I am not going to be responding to you anymore after this, and I advise others to do the same. Don't annoy me by mentioning me in another thread to continue the discussion.

[PhilRisk]

Well, those assertions should be easy to evaluate for somebody who is an expert in climate science.

Thank you for the obfuscation. You can become an expert as well. Study physics and read research and summaries, like the IPCC report, which includes a simple summary for policy makers and a technical summary.

As far as I understand that, no. The warming because of the Sun getting brighter is not predicted to lead to a feedback loop.

A brighter sun would lead to a feedback loop as well. Easy to understand: Warming -> more water vapor (Clausius-Clapeyron equation). Type of forcing does not matter.

As far as I understand it, we know next to nothing about the history of the temperature of the Earth before the late 19th century. We need to rely on extremely unreliable indicators that show contradictory results. Was there a medieval warming period? If so, how hot it was? Was it as hot as today? Was it even hotter than today? Was there really a Roman warm period? If so, how hot it was back then? Was it as hot as today? Was it hotter than today? And it just gets worse the further you go into the past.

For my argument it is not necessary to know all the details. It is enough to know there had been ice ages, so quite big changes. To explain these you need to assume feedback mechanisms.

But this hasn't been observed. In fact, the infrared radiation from the Earth is increasing.

The decrease in these specific models is the initial reaction, but emissions were already rising before there is data available. The infrared radiation has only been measured since 1970. Therefore, there is no outgoing infrared data for the initial rise in greenhouse gas emissions. The observation are consistent with an increasing greenhouse gas forcing, if one does a spectral analysis.

But, as far as I understand it, there is no scientific consensus the greenhouse gasses we emit are what's mostly responsible for global warming. Scientists agree it's at least partly responsible, and that's all.

There is a consensus, that greenhouse gases are responsible for most of global warming. The best estimate is, that the whole warming is anthropogenic. Uncertainty is due to unknown aerosol forcing. The anthropogenic attribution is highly certain. This is the summary you can find in the IPCC-report.

warming is indiscernible even when you look at the raw [snipped] of the long-term temperature records. In fact, there appears to be a cooling trend.
Now, the apparent cooling trend is probably due to the time of observation bias and it disappears once you correct for it, but that doesn't change the point that the warming is indiscernible unless you are looking at the ocean temperatures or satellite data.

The data is adjusted for know errors and for statistical inhomogeneities, which are due to non-documented changes in measurements, like relocation of stations are changes in equipement. The raw data were not taken for climate research but for weather estimates. Therefore, they have to be corrected. The global warming estimate from the raw data would be bigger, than from the adjusted data. By looking at the continental US, you are cherry picking.

The warming is discernible e.g. if you look at specific data like time of ice melt or beginning of blossoming, which in Germany is roughly 20 days earlier for apple trees and canola than in the 1970s, which counter intuitively leads to more frost damage for apple, because there still is a higher risk frost in specific weather conditions. For canola it is not negative for the farmers. The trees were not selected for the changed weather but for a different one.

For blossoming (german), S. 102f: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/de ... wandel.pdf
For ice lake data: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/f ... t-40-years