And this is what is really annoying. ANY questioning or request for specifics or cost/benefit analyses generates whines of “Denier”. As you have just demonstrated. Please. There aren’t enough :roll eyes:s
Let’s see if you will answer these very reasonable questions directly.:
Do you think it is reasonable that people be able to weight the cost-benefits of Action Items A, B, C, etc.?
Do you agree that the greater the cost (monetarily or otherwise) the greater degree of benefit that must counteract it? Not necessarily completely, but generally.
Do you agree that the greater the amount of pain an Action Item requires (monetarily or otherwise) the greater the burden falls to those who think it wise to explain it?
Can you provide any specifics for what I asked for here:
You’re taking the same tack as Magellan01, ignoring the fact that there is a large body of existing and rapidly evolving research on impacts and the necessary carbon stabilization scenarios. But it’s a three-tiered hierarchy that begins with the physics of climate change and extends to assessing impacts and then to strategies for mitigating those impacts and for inevitable adaptations. The sad part is that much of the population, like a few of the posters here, are still arguing the basic physics.
My general response to that question is that we should stop patting ourselves on the back for recycling and whatever other good things we may be doing, and listen more carefully to what the science is telling us. Mind you, some conservatives I know take pride in not recycling and turning on every light in the house during Earth Day just for spite, so a minimal level of ecological awareness should certainly be commended. But it’s not addressing the problem. And furthermore, nothing that this country or North America and Europe alone can do is enough, either. It’s the global community that needs to listen to what the science is telling us, enforced by treaties, about key areas like adaptation and mitigation. Mitigation involves both short-term and long-term strategies. With regard to the long term, we are at least in Category IV (Table SPM.5) which means we are already committed to a 3.2 to 4ºC temperature rise associated with stabilizing CO2 at between 485 and 570 ppm, with a corresponding CO2 equivalent of 590-710 ppm. At this point it’s doubtful that we can stabilize even at the high end of that, which would put us in Category V with a committed temperature rise of up to 5ºC; some of the profound impacts of such a temperature rise can be seen here.
1) Do you think it is reasonable that people be able to weight the cost-benefits of Action Items A, B, C, etc.?
Let me put it this way. There’s a reason that the National Academy of Sciences is funded by the federal government with the stated mission of being “science advisers to the nation”. They are not and should not be policymakers but those who are elected and charged with making policy should be guided by sound science, provided by the respected institutions that are funded and chartered to provide it, and not by the likes of the above-mentioned guy who likes to turn on all his house lights during Earth Day just out of spite because he thinks climate change is a big joke. Policymaking must be pragmatic but it must also be evidence-based and rational.
2) Do you agree that the greater the cost (monetarily or otherwise) the greater degree of benefit that must counteract it? Not necessarily completely, but generally.
Yes. And that includes the cases where a fair assessment shows the “cost” to be negative, because the consequences of insufficient mitigation may ultimately be more costly.
3) Do you agree that the greater the amount of pain an Action Item requires (monetarily or otherwise) the greater the burden falls to those who think it wise to explain it?
This is the same question as #1 and the same answer applies. The explanations are there, but there will always be those who reject it, just like the large numbers who have currently been persuaded to reject climate change altogether, and just like there will always be those who “know” that Obama was born in Kenya and that water flouridation is a government mind-control plot.
4) Can you provide any specifics for what I asked for here:
Please see the links in my previous two posts for all the information you could possibly want, including economic analyses. I’m not especially knowledgeable in those areas, which span mitigation technologies and economic impacts; from a science standpoint, the bottom line is to stabilize emissions as quickly as we can as we are already well beyond any realistic prospect of stabilizing at a safe level.
Well, we already know that the reply to the question of the thread is NO, there is some cooling in some areas of the northern hemisphere, but that is only meaningful to the ones that declare that the scientists from NASA and GISS that tell us that the warming is still there, specially in the oceans, are “nobodies”.
I didn’t see the other thread and would have posted my last few comments over there if I had. But to answer the question, I don’t think this thread had any useful purpose to begin with as the whole premise is pointless. There were a few good exchanges of information here but they were about the larger issues and not the one raised in the OP.
It allowed me to focus my scientific eye on both the unexpected trends, the asymmetrical climate change, to understand the approach, or lack of approach, that those is denial about climate change bring to a discussion of data that shows something other than what the IPCC predicted. .
We also got a good sidetrack about solar influence on climate, as well as a ton of off topic commentary about the political and social problems surrounding fear mongering, and some other good shit.
We still haven’t actually had a debate about the information in the OP and subsequent posts, but hope springs eternal.
If measurements show a plateau, you don’t think it’s valid to wonder what is happening? Where is the heat?
The OP correctly points out that there has been at minimum a plateau, and if that is an uninteresting piece of data due to short length of time, then why have scientists gone to the trouble to create a model of the oceans to see if it could be supported that the heat is in the ocean?
There are a dozen different hypothesis circulating about “why” things are not going anything at all like the climate models predicted.
The severe winters, an undeniable fact for much of the NH, is a very serious thing. If it is a trend that will increase (the solar scientists predict it will), it’s critical to know this. Winters are the most dangerous and damaging season. Period.
The early October blizzard of 2013 killed one third of Montanans cows. That isn’t the sort of thing that can be handwaved away as “more heat means more extreme weather events”, or whatever rationalization the alarmists trots out to dismiss record cold events.
The late spring that we know we already know will happen in much of the US is an extreme economic event. The great lakes freezing is an economic event. The increase in fule use is another, all kinds of things are influenced by record and long lasting cold.
If it was just an anomly, no big deal. But the winters are not. In fact, a warm winter is now an anomaly.
Are we now going to have a meta-discussion about whether the OP was pointless or not? If so, I’ll point out that question of why the rate of warming has slowed was never raised in the OP, which made sure to emphasize that it was just the subject of the alleged warming slowdown (described as a “cooling”) that was being discussed. Because God forbid if we were to discuss science – the possible increased ocean heat uptake, the acclerated warming in the Arctic, the historical noise, pauses, and reversals in the natural climate system even in the presence of strong forcings – then the denialist message in the OP would be lost. That’s why such a discussion is both pointless and a misdirection. Notice that despite three direct challenges the OP still persistently avoids making a clear statement about his position on the basic science.
When I read the OP, I see lots of data or links to data, and very little “position”.
This is what I see in the OP:
1 - Global mean has dropped a little since 2002
2 - A more detailed view shows NH winters appear to be skewing the average
3 - A question about whether you see it too
What is so controversial about that?
Either the data supports it or it doesn’t and he linked to the source of all of his data.
Number 1 is still very controversial. And the problem is falling for what FX is implying, never mind that there is cooling in some areas of the northern hemisphere, what FX has done is to confuse a few into thinking that this is really about the global mean. What one can conclude is that that was the intention, talk about the Northern Hemisphere and casually drive the conversation to leave the impression that it is the whole globe. His later citations of debunked and denier sources to once again go back to the reheated baloney of denying what CO2 is doing is really pathetic and demonstrates that **wolfpup **is correct, the postings are pointless and misdirections. It is just ignorance fighting back.
The big picture is ignored, and so are the scientists and the very organizations that FX is getting his cherry picked data.
Even the paper FX cites in the OP does not agree with all of what he claimed through the thread, and to make it worse, as Mr Dibble showed, the paper does cite as its support other papers that point that warming is likely to continue and agree on what CO2 is doing.
That’s because you are reality based, you sugffer from seeing factual and real things, instead of what your own mind creates. It’s a terrible curse that scientific rational people suffer from
To be fair there is a bit more than that, but still, what you describe is called “reality”.
That would be explained by some of the next 200 posts in the thread.
Of course, that’s called “science”, where anyone can replicate the information, instead of having to take my world for it. The problem is, what people believe causes “bias”, which is what real science strives to eliminate, because one thing we know for sure, is that our own minds can skew reality, which is what science tries to avoid.
We even double blind people, it’s such a powerful force, it actually can cause people to see and believe things that don’t exist, or are not true.
And my point is demonstrated, indeed the idea is to make it sound that it was about the globe and not the northern hemisphere; also, that it was about all the seasons, when it was just the winters. And that it was about the recent “cooling” of the earth but ignores the increase in the ocean temperature and recent papers that report that a lot of the warming in the poles has been missed.
And to keep the surreal points going scientists from those organizations he is cherry picking will be ignored by FX too, not a very reasonable position to have.
Exactly my point. Maybe I should start a new and scientifically informative thread along the lines of something like “I notice it was warmer at this time last year than it is now. Does anyone disagree? Let’s have a debate.” I’m sure that would be terrifically useful. About as useful as this thread. Because everyone who participates in SDMB is always interested in hearing banal ruminations on the weather completely devoid of any science or logic. :rolleyes:
I didn’t say it was controversial, I said it was pointless. The misleading way the data was presented is just a small side issue. Without a serious and sincere focus on discussing the scientific basis, it’s just noise and waste of time and disk space. Drive-by comments like “maybe CO2 actually causes cooling” or “maybe AGW theory is completely wrong” pretty much confirm the intended message. This thread is rapidly winding down into complete nonsense, which is just how it started.
Nonsense. And it won’t matter how many times you make a claim, unless you can show why, and provide evidence for your claim, it’s just something you are saying. It’s not scientific, it’s not even a debate, it’s just repeating “It’s wrong”. I dealt with this in another topic already.
The “missing warming at the poles” was already answered before.
The myth that by using a short trend period the data shows somethng meaningless is easily debunked.
Winter trend from 1998-2013 shows clearly the large areas experiencing a cooling trend. Of course the warmer objects to a short term (15 years) trend when it shows cooling.
from 1995-2013 also shows the trend, but the warmer objects to a 18 year trend.
from 1992-2013 even still shows cooling winter trends, but a 21 period is too short.
There you see the cooling in Asia still showing up. But no longer the US. Except you can look at February (the coldest month of NH winters) and there it is again, a cooling trend for large parts of the US for February, from 1988.
Obviously from the severe cold this year, the trend is still happening for parts of the US, with colder winters, with more snow, becoming the norm.
No, the only trend acceptable for examining winters, has to start in 1970, which is absurd to a scientific mind. Winters change rapidly in terms of both temperatures and snow, unlike the longer climate cycles. And the 70s was a period with the coldest winters ever recorded for most of the world.
There actually is another time period that shows the same sort of rapid decline for winter temperatures, along with the increased snowfall. (colder winters are always associated with increased snow, never the other way around)
But that colder winter trend was also associated with a cooling trend for summers as well. This current asymmetrical change is unusual in any ways.
That’s the really interesting part, to a scientist.
