Aliens Caused Global Warming - Scientific Consensus

[82_VOL_83]

1. Food and water will not necessarily be problems. They might be, but that is merely a possibility. On the other side, the possibility exists that there will be more food available and more water. If you are pushing to burden the lives of individuals now because of proposed catastrophes later, the burden of proof is on you to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the catastrophe is imminent.

2. Phytoplankton takes care of CO2 much more efficiently than cold water.

I don't have to have enough food and water to last forever, just enough to outlast 60% of the population.

 

[BartW]

Yeah, I've read it. Maybe you ought to read it closer, and pay attention to how qualified the assessments are. It's filled with conditional statements and acknowledgments that due to the complexity of the ecosystem and the lack of information, many hard statements cannot be made or rigorously supported.

As for poor risk management, such a charge is unwarranted. There are several reasons for this: the risk management that some advocate puts many who are currently living at risk of losing their sustenance (industrial productivity makes nourishment available to a significant portion of the world's population, constraining such productivity could constrain nourishment); the risk management that some advocate could be a constraint on achieving greater future benefits; the risk management that some advocate could be absolutely futile, thus we sacrifice current benefits in vain.

Read it again. This time, though, do so less indulgently and more finely. Every last assessment is qualified by a lack of information and understanding of the complexity of the ecosystem.

Either you haven’t read it, you don’t know the meaning of the qualifiers, or you have a seriously warped view of risk management. Here are just a few of the executive summary statements from the WG2 chapter on:

Freshwater resources

Freshwater-related risks of climate change increase significantly with increasing greenhouse gas emissions (high agreement, robust evidence)

Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources significantly in most dry subtropical regions (high agreement, robust evidence). This will exacerbate competition for water among agriculture, ecosystems, settlements, industry and energy production, affecting regional water, energy and food security.

Climate change is likely to increase the frequency of meteorological droughts (less rainfall) and agricultural droughts (less soil moisture) in presently dry regions by the end of this century under the RCP8.5 scenario (medium confidence). This is likely to increase the frequency of short hydrological droughts (less surface water and groundwater) in these regions (medium agreement, medium evidence).

Climate change is projected to reduce raw water quality, posing risks to drinking water quality even with conventional treatment (high agreement, medium evidence).

In regions with snowfall, climate change has altered observed streamflow seasonality, and increasing alterations due to climate change are projected (high agreement, robust evidence).

Because nearly all glaciers are too large for equilibrium with the present climate, there is a committed water- resources change during much of the 21st century, and changes beyond the committed change are expected due to continued warming; in glacier-fed rivers, total meltwater yields from stored glacier ice will increase in many regions during the next decades but decrease thereafter (high agreement, robust evidence).

Food security and food production systems

The effects of climate change on crop and food production are evident in several regions of the world (high confidence).

Studies have documented a large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30°C. These sensitivities have been identified for several crops and regions and exist throughout the growing season (high confidence).

Without adaptation, local temperature increases in excess of about 1 C above preindustrial is projected to have negative effects on yields for the major crops (wheat, rice and maize) in both tropical and temperate regions, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). With or without adaptation, negative impacts on average yields become likely from the 2030s.

Under scenarios of high levels of warming, leading to local mean temperature increases of 3-4 C or higher, models based on current agricultural systems suggest large negative impacts on agricultural productivity and substantial risks to global food production and security (medium confidence).

And, a chapter you should look at more closely if you really think we can just move to the North Pole,

Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits

A range of biophysical, institutional, financial, social, and cultural factors constrain the planning and implementation of adaptation options and potentially reduce their effectiveness (very high confidence).

Limits to adaptation can emerge as a result of the interactions among climate change and biophysical and socioeconomic constraints (high agreement, medium evidence).
.
Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce the rate and magnitude of future climate change and therefore the likelihood that limits to adaptation will be exceeded (high agreement, medium evidence).

The selection and implementation of specific adaptation options has ethical implications (very high confidence)

Btw, in your scenario, how does the mass migration work? Will Canada and Russia just open their borders to refugees? Are we content with letting them become the world superpowers?

And these statements are just on the effects. The physical science (WG1) is so robust that the IPCC had to create a new category “virtually certain” (>99%).

 

[BartW]

I got a better laugh out of this one than the post where you claimed to be a libertarian.

SV thinks ozone, acid rain, DDT, ETS, global warming, and evolution are all a lie. He’s a self-professed market fundamentalist. Fred Singer is his homeboy. If you were to look up ideologue in the dictionary you’d see a big fat picture of his face.

Yes I’m a libertarian, but it may not seem that way to some of you VN far right extremists. It’s how I think, it’s how I vote. But I don’t let my opinion on scientific issues be dictated by party lines. I’m a scientist and my views are both objective and consistent with the scientific consensus. I’ve specifically pointed out examples of science denialism by the libs to avoid being called a partisan hack, but it’s futile.

Love you too fellas

 

[BartW]

Good luck getting this answer and resolutions. I tried for pages and pages.

The only thing you asked for pages and pages was

What was the temperature in the Savannah area, or as close to the area, on March 3, 719000BC?

You've done nothing but invoke denialist arguments. Atleast TRUT is asking honest questions

 

[Obsessed]

The only thing you asked for pages and pages was



You've done nothing but invoke denialist arguments. Atleast TRUT is asking honest questions

By definition is TRUT not a denialist?
( per your definition)

 

[therealUT]

Either you haven’t read it, you don’t know the meaning of the qualifiers, or you have a seriously warped view of risk management. Here are just a few of the executive summary statements from the WG2 chapter on:

Freshwater resources

Food security and food production systems

And, a chapter you should look at more closely if you really think we can just move to the North Pole,

Adaptation opportunities, constraints, and limits

Btw, in your scenario, how does the mass migration work? Will Canada and Russia just open their borders to refugees? Are we content with letting them become the world superpowers?

And these statements are just on the effects. The physical science (WG1) is so robust that the IPCC had to create a new category “virtually certain” (>99%).

Everything here quoted, just reinforces my above statement. Or, shallI say it can and likely may reinforce my above statement?

The evaluative language throughout the document is couched in qualifiers such as, "likely", "if sufficient", "if necessary", etc. I want more than this if sacrifices are going to be made and asked of the current population.

As for laws in Canada and Russia, that is an issue separate from climate change. Does it impact climate change? It impacts the migration of persons, so it could affect consequences of climate change. But, freedom of movement ought be a right of persons with or without climate change.

As for creating "virtually certain" categories, anyone with the tiniest grasp of the history of science has to laugh at such a statement. Look at the scientific consensus regarding population control and the Malthusian trap, for example. Everyone was certain this was a huge problem that required government intervention. Yet, a generation later, the problem was gone and it was gone due to natural market forces, not due to interventionism. Or, check out Einstein's refutation of quantum mechanics. He provides a reductio based on the notion we now understand as quantum entanglement. Yet, now theoretical physicists think they have actually observed, tested, and proved quantum entanglement. Scientific certainty is overturned in every generation. I would suggest reading some Chalmers, Quine, and Popper for a theoretical understanding of this thing we call science, and why we ought not move to the beat of any scientific "certainty" that is not subject to intergenerational scrutiny.

Scientific theories are rated by explanatory power. Climate change proponents may be right and they may be wrong. Not doing anything could be costly, and doing something could be costly. Prudence would advise waiting for thirty to forty more years, predicting according to said models, and observing to ensure the explanatory power. Rashly intervening and instituting constraints on production, production that billions of currently living individuals rely on, is not what is needed...ever. Wait. Observe. Let the truth of the models be demonstrated across generations. Then act. And, yes, this comes with risk, but so too does acting now.

 

[BartW]

By definition is TRUT not a denialist?
( per your definition)

First, I want to repeat that it’s not “my definition”. Denialism has been defined and studied for years. Heck even Plato and Socrates had to deal with the same BS from sophists.

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Denialism Blog - About

No he has not employed denialist tactics yet, but he’s getting dangerously close with the “science was wrong before” argument. I’m curious whether he will if/when he expands on this statement:

the assertion of climate change is an incredibly problematic assertion. The argument for climate change is, at best, questionable.

because the basic fact that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at a rate equivalent to about 4 hiroshima bombs per second is indisputable. It’s not speculation, it’s a direct measurement.

TRUT’s arguments have mostly come from the angle that we may be able to adapt. But I have to stress that we don’t have a choice between mitigation and adaptation. Economic models agree that once we reach a certain tipping point, the costs of climate damage increase at an accelerating rate. The models don't agree on exactly where that tipping point lies, but they do agree on the shape of the curve and the acceleration of the climate damage costs once we pass that tipping point.

The internationally agreed upon goal was to limit warming to 2 C (relative to pre-industrial levels). Even climate contrarians like economist Richard Tol, the dude you guys brought up, agree that warming will be detrimental at high levels (> 3C). Well we’ve already warmed 1 C and there’s already more in the pipeline. Moreover, despite the economic slowdown greenhouse gas emissions grew nearly twice as fast over the past decade as over the previous 30 years.

There’s no way we could stop cold turkey. It will take decades to divest from fossil fuels. The earlier we act the more gradually we can cut back emissions. The carbon tax –the fiscally conservative approach- may not be an option for long. Action now is advisable under any plausible climate scenario. The risks are simply too high to wait.

Is climate change humanity's greatest-ever risk management failure?
Take a page from the military: Risk management could reboot climate change debate
Uncertainty isn’t cause for climate complacency – quite the opposite 

Everything here quoted, just reinforces my above statement. Or, shallI say it can and likely may reinforce my above statement?

The evaluative language throughout the document is couched in qualifiers such as, "likely", "if sufficient", "if necessary", etc. I want more than this if sacrifices are going to be made and asked of the current population.

As for laws in Canada and Russia, that is an issue separate from climate change. Does it impact climate change? It impacts the migration of persons, so it could affect consequences of climate change. But, freedom of movement ought be a right of persons with or without climate change.

As for creating "virtually certain" categories, anyone with the tiniest grasp of the history of science has to laugh at such a statement. Look at the scientific consensus regarding population control and the Malthusian trap, for example. Everyone was certain this was a huge problem that required government intervention. Yet, a generation later, the problem was gone and it was gone due to natural market forces, not due to interventionism. Or, check out Einstein's refutation of quantum mechanics. He provides a reductio based on the notion we now understand as quantum entanglement. Yet, now theoretical physicists think they have actually observed, tested, and proved quantum entanglement. Scientific certainty is overturned in every generation. I would suggest reading some Chalmers, Quine, and Popper for a theoretical understanding of this thing we call science, and why we ought not move to the beat of any scientific "certainty" that is not subject to intergenerational scrutiny.

Scientific theories are rated by explanatory power. Climate change proponents may be right and they may be wrong. Not doing anything could be costly, and doing something could be costly. Prudence would advise waiting for thirty to forty more years, predicting according to said models, and observing to ensure the explanatory power. Rashly intervening and instituting constraints on production, production that billions of currently living individuals rely on, is not what is needed...ever. Wait. Observe. Let the truth of the models be demonstrated across generations. Then act. And, yes, this comes with risk, but so too does acting now.

Did you look at the definitions of the qualifiers? If you have access, take a look at Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses information relevant to the understanding of climate change and explores options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC reports communicate uncertainty by using a set of probability terms accompanied by global interpretational guidelines. The judgment literature indicates that there are large differences in the way people understand such phrases, and that their use may lead to confusion and errors in communication. We conducted an experiment in which subjects read sentences from the 2007 IPCC report and assigned numerical values to the probability terms. The respondents' judgments deviated significantly from the IPCC guidelines, even when the respondents had access to these guidelines. These results suggest that the method used by the IPCC is likely to convey levels of imprecision that are too high. We propose an alternative form of communicating uncertainty, illustrate its effectiveness, and suggest several additional ways to improve the communication of uncertainty.

There’s been a consensus essentially since the Charney report in ’79. The science has been building since the mid-19th century. This isn’t a rash intervention.

We’ve been waiting and observing and the predictions of the AGW hypothesis have largely come true. It has explanatory power. It successfully predicted increasing downward radiation, decreasing outward radiation, stratospheric cooling, decreasing diurnal temperature range, polar amplification, rising tropopause, and of course increasing temperatures, melting glaciers/ice caps, sea level rise, etc.

If the "pause” is an artifact of cherry-picking (like every other “pause” has been so far) and the temperature trend picks back up, following IPCC projections, you would have us wait another 30-40 years? We’re worlds apart on our approach to risk management.

 

[Sandvol]

Bart just keeps regurgitating his marching orders. From the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer:



Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”
March 31st, 2014

Noah-fleeing-global-warming:
The latest report of Working Group II of the IPCC, entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, was approved yesterday. In it, the concept of the “risks” posed by human-induced climate change figures prominently.

Now, I can understand using terms like “possibilities” when it comes to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It’s theoretically possible that the average warming of the last 50+ years was mostly human-caused, and it’s possible that the slight sea level rise over this time was more human-caused than natural (sea level was rising naturally anyway). But we really don’t know.

And the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is even more sketchy. Mostly because there is little or no objective evidence that these events have experienced any long-term increase that is commensurate with warming. (It’s possible they are worse with globally cool conditions…we really don’t know).

But the main point of my article is that the IPCC has bastardized the use of the term “risk”. Talking “possibilities” is one thing, because just about anything is possible in science. But “risk” refers to the known tendency of bad things to happen as a result of some causal mechanism.

Walking across the street raises your risk of being hit by a car. We know this, because it has happened many thousands of times.

Cigarette smoking raises your risk of lung cancer. We know this because it has happened millions of times (and is consistent with other medical evidence that human tissue exposed to repeated injury, anywhere in your body, can result in the formation of cancerous tissue).

But when it comes to climate change, there is no demonstrated causal connection between (A) an extra 1 CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of air, and (B) any resulting observed change in weather or climate.

There are theories of how the former might impact the latter. But that’s all.

You cannot use the term “risk” to describe these theoretical possibilities.

The fact that the IPCC has chosen to do so further demonstrates it is an organization that was political in its intended purpose, with the ultimate mission of regulating CO2 emissions, and operates within an echo chamber of like-minded individuals who are chosen based upon their political support of the IPCC’s goals.

Now, you might ask, “Dr. Roy, are you telling me there are NO known risks to adding more CO2 to the atmosphere?”

Well, I can only think of one. There are abundant controlled scientific studies which suggest that more CO2 will cause most vegetation to grow better, with more drought tolerance and more efficient use of water.

If you want to call that a “risk”, fine. But it doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to me, especially given the life-enhancing benefits of access to abundant, low cost forms of energy.

 

[508mikey]

Central Illinois from 70 today 4/13 to 26 tommarow 4/14 with snow --- get lost GW loons

 

[BartW]

Bart just keeps regurgitating his marching orders. From the honorable Dr. Roy Spencer:

Lol. Honorable like ya boy Fred Singer, who kicked off his corporate denialism career at the same George C. Marshall Institute where Spencer today serves on the board of directors? I wonder how much they get paid for being experts at the Heartland Institute (recall the billboard)? Or by writing for DCI-founded TCS daily with “the junkman” Steve Milloy. All are tobacco offenders. Three strikes, you’re out.

Roy Spencer (also a big creationist) has drawn on about every denialist argument in the book, and he does a nice piece here. It’s hilarious how you’ll copypaste the most obvious BS as long as it supports your position. Incidentally, Spencer’s nonsense reminds me of some recent research I meant to share earlier:

Archaeageddon: how gas-belching microbes could have caused mass extinction

All five of Earth's past mass extinction events have been a result of rapid climate change. The end-permian extinction killed 90% of all life on Earth, including 96% of all marine life. We know there was an intense spike in CO2, temperature, and ocean acidity, typically attributed to the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps. This new research indicates the volcanic eruptions may merely have been a catalyst for a ‘bloom’ of methanogens, super-exponentially increasing methane concentrations in our atmosphere. Methane, by the way, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 by weight. There’s just less of it in the atmosphere as it’s relatively short lived. Atmospheric methane eventually breaks down into CO2 and H2O.

Does this story sound familiar? There are orders of magnitude more methane locked up in permafrost and clathrates than is presently in the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost is already increasing methane emissions (in addition to causing widespread subsidence). We could hit a tipping point soon where huge volumes of methane are belched into the atmosphere. So, can bad things result from climate change? History says yes.

Btw, your repeated insinuation that I’m here on orders sounds awfully conspiratorial :loco:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

I am curious Bart, just who are the "credible" scientists associated with climate change? Obviously any scientist that anyone else brings up is considered a joke, I would like to know the names of the "real" ones.

 

[BartW]

I am curious Bart, just who are the "credible" scientists associated with climate change? Obviously any scientist that anyone else brings up is considered a joke, I would like to know the names of the "real" ones.

Most scientists are credible. Only a small handful work for astroturf anti-environmental organizations. Serial disinformers are easy to spot if you know what to look for.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Central Illinois from 70 today 4/13 to 26 tommarow 4/14 with snow --- get lost GW loons

Don't you know that changing weather indicates climate change??

 

[82_VOL_83]

Actually all this can be blamed on the moon being approximately 743.66 miles closer to earth than it used to be.

 

[therealUT]

Did you look at the definitions of the qualifiers? If you have access, take a look at Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Yes, I understand the qualifiers. Even assigning greater than 90% confidence to the qualifiers still entails that these are probabilistic prediction models, they are not tested and observed over the long run.

There’s been a consensus essentially since the Charney report in ’79. The science has been building since the mid-19th century. This isn’t a rash intervention.

We’ve been waiting and observing and the predictions of the AGW hypothesis have largely come true. It has explanatory power. It successfully predicted increasing downward radiation, decreasing outward radiation, stratospheric cooling, decreasing diurnal temperature range, polar amplification, rising tropopause, and of course increasing temperatures, melting glaciers/ice caps, sea level rise, etc.

This is false. The models in use today have been continuously refined since the mid-twentieth century, but the developed models that scientists believe are sufficient for accurately predicting climate change are not from 1979, they are from the late 80s and early 90s.

Further, while these models serve to explain the past, they do so because they are built on artifacts from the past. They do not yet explain the future. This is why climate scientists find the pause both puzzling and troublesome. It is not that one must deny climate change, but one must, if one is honest, hesitate from the pause.

None of the models predicted the pause. This is one major problem with the models. They lack explanatory power after they were produced and refined. Thus, they need to be more refined and actually bear explanatory power regarding the future.

Another problem with placing so much faith in the models, prior to them providing accurate predictions of the future, is that the various models provide various different predictions (and, yes, I understand that some of the models vary only because they use different confidence intervals and different expected emissions; however, others vary because they use varying assumptions as inputs). What this means is that at best only one of these models is the correct model. At worst, none are correct.

If the "pause” is an artifact of cherry-picking (like every other “pause” has been so far) and the temperature trend picks back up, following IPCC projections, you would have us wait another 30-40 years? We’re worlds apart on our approach to risk management.

No, the temperature trends back up the fact that the models were built using these temperature trends as inputs. That is it.

Yes, I would have us wait 30-40 years. I would have us wait until we can select a model that has actually served to predict future events. This is not cherry-picking. This is asking the model to do what it purports to do (explain the future of the ecosystem), prior to acting on the advice of the model. It is validation of the model.

You keep asserting "risk management", and, yes, we are worlds apart on our approach. I recognize the potential of costs in the future, the potential of benefits in the future, and the potential of costs now. Unless you deny that adopting measures now to try to lessen climate change (limiting and capping emissions, which is limiting and capping production, which is limiting and capping the production and distribution of nourishment across the globe) comes without any major sacrifice, then you ought to take the sacrifice seriously. Before taking food out of the mouths of many of the poor (less production means less supply, less supply means higher prices), I would want to be absolutely, 100% positive that the sacrifice I was forcing upon individuals was the only resort.

We are not 100% positive. We are not 100% positive the models accurately predict anything. That is not denialism or some close-minded view, that is true. This is why climate scientists and climate change proponents ought to listen attentively to von Storch. It is why such proponents ought not exaggerate their claims or give more weight to the models than is merited. By saying the models possess explanatory power because they explain the past, is to neglect the fact that such models incorporated that same past as inputs. The explanatory power comes not from making precise and accurate statements regarding the time previous to the working model, but from making precise and accurate statements regarding the time posterior to the working model. This is why a large sample size of correct predictions regarding the future is absolutely necessary for the validation of the models. Any scientist who denies that is not doing science. They are merely exploiting the trust that contemporary society places in science in order to push an agenda.

No serious models predict more than a 1 meter rise in sea-levels prior to 2100. Maybe waiting 30-40 years means that we must live with the 1 meter rise in sea-levels in 2100, but we can stave off greater rises in sea-level and temperature if we start to seriously intervene in industry and production in 2050. However, if we intervene now, we will never know whether the models were true. We will simply have to rest on faith and put our trust in faith that we did the right thing in imposing constraints that led to the deaths of many currently living individuals for the sake of individuals living in the future.

I do not share that faith. And, that is what that is: faith, not science. Science is patient. Science waits for the results to come in. If you want to argue the results are in, right now, then the 15 year pause is the largest time frame for the results of the current working models. And, those results, if they are the majority of the results we have (which, they currently are), tell against climate change.

And, yes, if you provide me with any data set from the past 200 years, I can plug the inputs into pattern recognition software, which will provide me with an algorithm that I can manipulate to explain the past 200 years (could do it to explain the last 2,000, as well). What it will not necessarily do is explain the next 10 years.

 

[therealUT]

Most scientists are credible. Only a small handful work for astroturf anti-environmental organizations. Serial disinformers are easy to spot if you know what to look for.

Ironic that you make this statement and then post a picture of Tyson. Tyson is the Malcom Gladwell of astronomy.

 

[Sandvol]

Lol. Honorable like ya boy Fred Singer, who kicked off his corporate denialism career at the same George C. Marshall Institute where Spencer today serves on the board of directors? I wonder how much they get paid for being experts at the Heartland Institute (recall the billboard)? Or by writing for DCI-founded TCS daily with “the junkman” Steve Milloy. All are tobacco offenders. Three strikes, you’re out.

Roy Spencer (also a big creationist) has drawn on about every denialist argument in the book, and he does a nice piece here. It’s hilarious how you’ll copypaste the most obvious BS as long as it supports your position. Incidentally, Spencer’s nonsense reminds me of some recent research I meant to share earlier:

Archaeageddon: how gas-belching microbes could have caused mass extinction

All five of Earth's past mass extinction events have been a result of rapid climate change. The end-permian extinction killed 90% of all life on Earth, including 96% of all marine life. We know there was an intense spike in CO2, temperature, and ocean acidity, typically attributed to the massive volcanic eruptions that formed the Siberian Traps. This new research indicates the volcanic eruptions may merely have been a catalyst for a ‘bloom’ of methanogens, super-exponentially increasing methane concentrations in our atmosphere. Methane, by the way, is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 by weight. There’s just less of it in the atmosphere as it’s relatively short lived. Atmospheric methane eventually breaks down into CO2 and H2O.

Does this story sound familiar? There are orders of magnitude more methane locked up in permafrost and clathrates than is presently in the atmosphere. Thawing permafrost is already increasing methane emissions (in addition to causing widespread subsidence). We could hit a tipping point soon where huge volumes of methane are belched into the atmosphere. So, can bad things result from climate change? History says yes.

Btw, your repeated insinuation that I’m here on orders sounds awfully conspiratorial :loco:

If he were a Darwinist he would be more credible to you? You've got it all figured out. What a buffoon. My theory Bart is aliens landed a trillion cows on the planet and all their farts caused the mass extinction.

 

[508mikey]

I am curious Bart, just who are the "credible" scientists associated with climate change? Obviously any scientist that anyone else brings up is considered a joke, I would like to know the names of the "real" ones.

Bill Nye

 

[Sandvol]

Bill Nye

Michael Mann

 

[therealUT]

Here's a curiosity I have.

Do any of the climate change models include assumptions of a possible decline in population?

It is widely recognized by economists, political scientists, and political philosophers that population growth not only slows down but potentially becomes negative as real material wealth is gained in societies. A variety of reasons are given for this conjecture, but most of them come down to increases and innovation in production.

Some economists have projections that suggest, if production continues to increase at the rate of increase over the past century, then the human population should fall to under 6 billion by 2100. And, since the negative population growth compounds with every generation, you could end up with less than 5 billion living persons on the earth by 2500 (in fact, you could end up with well less than 5 billion). The interesting thing is that parallel to this phenomenon would be a natural reduction in production, as less individuals have less aggregate needs and desires.

On the flip side, however, decreasing production now, raises prices now, and decreases real material wealth. Impoverished societies have greater population growth, even while the vast majority of the persons in such societies live pretty miserable lives, die early, etc. Artificially decreasing production, then, could result in a population of over 15 billion by 2100 (this is according to a UN projection). Of course, even to barely feed 15 billion individuals requires a great deal of production. So, artificially decreasing production means that (1) we must actually always incrementally increase production simply to allow billions of persons to merely subsist, (2) let billions of persons simply starve, or (3) artificially decrease reproduction. There are many who actually opt for (3), and think that not only are forced sterilizations and constraints on the reproductive rights of individuals not abhorrent, but are actually to be encouraged.

Such constraints and forced sterilizations may or may not be morally repugnant (I think they are). But, what is important to keep in mind is that to support limits on emissions and, thus, production now, is to support either allowing billions of individuals to starve (both now and later) or to support such interventions on reproduction.

 

[BartW]

Here's a curiosity I have.

Do any of the climate change models include assumptions of a possible decline in population?

:dunno:

Interesting question. Global food and energy demand are expected to continue increasing for the foreseeable future AFAIK

Yes, I understand the qualifiers. Even assigning greater than 90% confidence to the qualifiers still entails that these are probabilistic prediction models, they are not tested and observed over the long run.

This is false. The models in use today have been continuously refined since the mid-twentieth century, but the developed models that scientists believe are sufficient for accurately predicting climate change are not from 1979, they are from the late 80s and early 90s.

Further, while these models serve to explain the past, they do so because they are built on artifacts from the past. They do not yet explain the future. This is why climate scientists find the pause both puzzling and troublesome. It is not that one must deny climate change, but one must, if one is honest, hesitate from the pause.

None of the models predicted the pause. This is one major problem with the models. They lack explanatory power after they were produced and refined. Thus, they need to be more refined and actually bear explanatory power regarding the future.

Another problem with placing so much faith in the models, prior to them providing accurate predictions of the future, is that the various models provide various different predictions (and, yes, I understand that some of the models vary only because they use different confidence intervals and different expected emissions; however, others vary because they use varying assumptions as inputs). What this means is that at best only one of these models is the correct model. At worst, none are correct.

No, the temperature trends back up the fact that the models were built using these temperature trends as inputs. That is it.

Yes, I would have us wait 30-40 years. I would have us wait until we can select a model that has actually served to predict future events. This is not cherry-picking. This is asking the model to do what it purports to do (explain the future of the ecosystem), prior to acting on the advice of the model. It is validation of the model.

You keep asserting "risk management", and, yes, we are worlds apart on our approach. I recognize the potential of costs in the future, the potential of benefits in the future, and the potential of costs now. Unless you deny that adopting measures now to try to lessen climate change (limiting and capping emissions, which is limiting and capping production, which is limiting and capping the production and distribution of nourishment across the globe) comes without any major sacrifice, then you ought to take the sacrifice seriously. Before taking food out of the mouths of many of the poor (less production means less supply, less supply means higher prices), I would want to be absolutely, 100% positive that the sacrifice I was forcing upon individuals was the only resort.

We are not 100% positive. We are not 100% positive the models accurately predict anything. That is not denialism or some close-minded view, that is true. This is why climate scientists and climate change proponents ought to listen attentively to von Storch. It is why such proponents ought not exaggerate their claims or give more weight to the models than is merited. By saying the models possess explanatory power because they explain the past, is to neglect the fact that such models incorporated that same past as inputs. The explanatory power comes not from making precise and accurate statements regarding the time previous to the working model, but from making precise and accurate statements regarding the time posterior to the working model. This is why a large sample size of correct predictions regarding the future is absolutely necessary for the validation of the models. Any scientist who denies that is not doing science. They are merely exploiting the trust that contemporary society places in science in order to push an agenda.

No serious models predict more than a 1 meter rise in sea-levels prior to 2100. Maybe waiting 30-40 years means that we must live with the 1 meter rise in sea-levels in 2100, but we can stave off greater rises in sea-level and temperature if we start to seriously intervene in industry and production in 2050. However, if we intervene now, we will never know whether the models were true. We will simply have to rest on faith and put our trust in faith that we did the right thing in imposing constraints that led to the deaths of many currently living individuals for the sake of individuals living in the future.

I do not share that faith. And, that is what that is: faith, not science. Science is patient. Science waits for the results to come in. If you want to argue the results are in, right now, then the 15 year pause is the largest time frame for the results of the current working models. And, those results, if they are the majority of the results we have (which, they currently are), tell against climate change.

And, yes, if you provide me with any data set from the past 200 years, I can plug the inputs into pattern recognition software, which will provide me with an algorithm that I can manipulate to explain the past 200 years (could do it to explain the last 2,000, as well). What it will not necessarily do is explain the next 10 years.

• The Charney report was the first comprehensive review of the literature. I wasn’t saying anything about the models, but since you mention it the report concluded that climate sensitivity would be 3C +/- 1.5. This estimate of climate sensitivity has been more or less unchanged for 35 years.

• “Models are based on the past, therefore aren’t useful for predicting the future” is a garbage argument.

• You’re still treating models as the pinnacle of climate research while ignoring the other dozen independent fingerprints of AGW I listed that were predicted and subsequently observed.

• The distribution of possible climate sensitivities is asymmetrical with a tail toward the high end, so if anything uncertainty would be more of a reason to act. Things could be much worse than anticipated. The problem with those pesky uncertainties is that they cut both ways. For example, arctic sea ice is declining more rapidly than even the most severe model projections.

• Also observed sea level rise is tracking at the upper range of model predictions. One meter by 2100 seems likely.

• Just for the heck of it, let’s see how Hansen’s 1988 projections have held up.

• Not bad, especially considering Hansen’s projection used a climate sensitivity of 4.2 C instead of the currently accepted value of ~3 C. Better than Lindzen, that's for sure.

• So even if the ‘pause’ turns out not to be a pause after all (as satellite and ocean heat content measurements indicate), you want us to continue business as usual until 2050? You realize that global warming doesn’t just stop when emissions stop, right? And it will take some time to divest from fossil fuels once we finally make that move. We could be committed to way more warming than our capacity to adapt by then. What if science is right and that does us in? You’re willing to risk everything for a few percent GDP for a few years? You say that carbon pricing will kill billions. Just how bad do you think it will crash the economy? How is it that none of the countries that put a price on carbon have crashed and burned yet? Why has the carbon tax garnered support in the US from conservative politicians, economists, and businesses (even big oil)?

Sandvol only asked for 10 more years of research and he’s a fringe ‘skeptic’. You think we should at least wait til 2050 no matter what? How is that good risk management?

 

[BartW]

Michael Mann

Tyson and Nye chose to be science communicators. Mann was unwillingly thrust into the public sphere by the vicious attacks of climate deniers.

 

[Weezy]

• “Models are based on the past, therefore aren’t useful for predicting the future” is a garbage argument.

• You’re still treating models as the pinnacle of climate research while ignoring the other dozen independent fingerprints of AGW I listed that were predicted and subsequently observed.

• The distribution of possible climate sensitivities is asymmetrical with a tail toward the high end, so if anything uncertainty would be more of a reason to act. Things could be much worse than anticipated. The problem with those pesky uncertainties is that they cut both ways. For example, arctic sea ice is declining more rapidly than even the most severe model projections.

I think you misrepresented his argument...like a lot. You can't judge a model's accuracy using the past when the past was its input. Somehow turned into “Models are based on the past, therefore aren’t useful for predicting the future." He never said they weren't, just that they haven't been tested.

I think the "other dozen independent fingerprints of AGW" is also cherrypicking. I'm not informed on the subject at all, but why would those fingerprints represent be more representative than others? Are there a dozen supporting AGW, but hundreds against it? That's why the models are important. Are they more important, I don't know, don't follow the science.

 

[Sandvol]

Doesn't look like its doing much of anything.

 

[Sandvol]

I think you misrepresented his argument...like a lot. You can't judge a model's accuracy using the past when the past was its input. Somehow turned into “Models are based on the past, therefore aren’t useful for predicting the future." He never said they weren't, just that they haven't been tested.

I think the "other dozen independent fingerprints of AGW" is also cherrypicking. I'm not informed on the subject at all, but why would those fingerprints represent be more representative than others? Are there a dozen supporting AGW, but hundreds against it? That's why the models are important. Are they more important, I don't know, don't follow the science.

You can't really believe any of the propaganda he posts. And, that's what it is.