This is one of the biggest problems with this debate and most others is the basic misunderstanding of science. Not just by climate change deniers but also by those who are concerned by it. This is one reason I have been critical of Al Gore and others who have taken some of the most extreme predictions and trotted them out there without considering that that these are probabilities and not certainty. On the other hand it is as damaging to cherry pick out certain extreme predictions without understanding that they are probabilities and what the probabilities are to try to undermine the whole science. For example on just this. Anyone who understand basic geology should know that glaciers do have a profound affect on the landscape. Most of North America was shaped by glaciers. That does seem possible then that glaciers might have an affect on the Earth's crust including things like volcanoes. Do we know that for certain probably not and certainly not without much more research. That doesn't discredit the rest of climate science especially when what we are seeing is inline with what climate predictions from decades ago. Not the alarmist predictions that people like Gore and deniers were throwing out but well within the range of predicted possibilities.
"The Inconvenient Facts On Australian Bushfires": https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...t-facts-on-australian-bushfires/#3ee9033a4594 excerpt: . . . @ScienceBrief has produced a summary of what the Fifth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded about the risks of wildfires, and placed those conclusions into the context of more recent peer-reviewed literature. Their summary is not likely to make anyone happy at the political extremes of the climate debate, but it is a fair representation of the current state of the science, as found in leading assessments and the peer-reviewed literature. I encourage you to read it in full, but below are some highlights. First, and crucially, they conclude: “The impact of anthropogenic climate change on fire weather is emerging above natural variability.” Human-caused climate change affects “fire weather” which they define as “periods with a high likelihood of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall and often high winds.” However, the emergence of that impact has only been detected in ~22% of the world’s burnable land area, according to a recent study by John Abatzoglou and colleagues. They conclude that, “Detection and attribution of global fire activity to anthropogenic climate change is confounded by influences of other anthropogenic activities such as land‐cover change, population, and fire suppression as well as temporally limited satellite‐based fire records.” In 2011, we contributed an early paper proposing a methodology focused on quantifying the “timescale of emergence” of a signal of human-caused climate change on tropical cyclones (hurricanes) and their impacts. The idea behind this approach is to use climate models, assuming for purposes of analysis that their projections are accurate, and ask when would we expect to detect a signal of human-caused climate change in climate variables or in their impacts. It will always be easier to detect the role of human-caused climate change weather and climate data (like in fire weather) than it will be to detect that role in societal impacts (like in the number of buildings burned). As we explained in an analysis of Australian bushfire losses over time: “bushfire damage is not solely a function of bushfire weather; far from it, in fact. Even given a gradual aggravation of bushfire weather due to anthropogenic climate change or other factors, a bushfire still has to be ignited. Once ignited, a bushfire then has to traverse the landscape and impact a populated area, where outcomes in terms of damage will be a function of the spatial disposition of dwellings with respect to the fire front, and especially distance of properties from the bushland boundary.” In the Abatzoglou study, the 22% of the burnable land area where detection of the role of human-caused climate change has been achieved includes the Amazon, Mediterranean, Scandinavia and Western North America. It does not include Siberia or Australia. That’s right, according to the latest research looking at the issue, the role of human-caused climate change in Australian bushfires has not yet been detected. It remains to be seen if the fires of 2019/2020 will alter that conclusion, but according to the Abatzoglou study, such detection is not expected until the 2040s. And that conclusion depends upon projections based on an extreme (and implausible) scenario for future emissions (RCP8.5), so detection may take a bit longer, assuming the projections are correct. Those who have chosen to wage their political battles over climate change through science – whatever side they are on – will certainly not be happy with the nuanced, somewhat complex, present state of detection and attribution of wildfire to human-caused climate change. For those of us interested in more aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies scientific nuance and complexity is not at all a problem – because it is accurate, and accuracy is important. Playing things straight on climate science may not always support a particular political agenda, and at times might even seem to undercut claims by one side or another. But what playing things straight can do is sustain public and policy maker trust in the scientific community. Playing things straight can be difficult on highly politicized issues, but organizations like the IPCC and @ScienceBrief are absolutely essential to the integrity of science as viewed by politicians and the public, whatever their political predispositions happen to be. So how should the media report on the bushfires? Accurately. That means relying on organizations like the IPCC, and placing the outlier views of individual scientists into that broader context. more at the link
LOL. So your evidence against human-caused climate change is that human-caused Climate changed happened in the Amazon, Mediterranean, Scandinavia, and North America. That's a bizarre way to argue that we shouldn't be overly concerned with human-caused climate change. And that they haven't included Australia... YET. The fires are still burning. It may or may not be included but either way it isn't a defense against regulations to help prevent human-caused climate change.
I hear that, but if you look at his more recent posts, I think they've been pretty thoughtful, high-content on this subject. Definitely not pasting denialists or whatever. But there is a real and present and important problem between long-term science and public policy when the issue is so important. It's very tough for "both sides" of any debate. All we are saaaaayiiinnnng, is give Os a chance!
I agree that his posts on this subject have been substantial. Even though they are different in the view that I have, they are legitimate attempts to support his position. I have no problem with most of his posts on climate change. My point was that for someone who is less than convinced about human-caused climate change and taking action, this article wasn't really supportive of that simply because it mentions that they haven't designated the fires in Australia as being related to climate change while mentioning several other fires that were definitely caused, at least, in part by human-caused climate change. I will engage or respect OS when he's not being disingenuous.
I believe climate change is real and mankind is/was a major contributor, but I do not believe we should destroy the economies around the world just to resolve this issue, there have to be some kind of middle ground on how to resolve this issue.Like many hard to resolve issues, the right balance is the key.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/red-states-brace-disasters-climate-130947612.html Climate change is fake, but we need money to help us to fight against the fake disasters caused by the fake climate change.
"Three Rules For Accepting Climate 'Event Attribution' Studies": https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...imate-event-attribution-studies/#4a57ecdf66ee excerpt: The rise of “event attribution” studies offers comfort and support to those focused on climate advocacy by establishing the linkage (weasel word) of specific extreme events and climate change. It it is not clear however that such studies offer much in the way of empirical rigor, particularly as compared to the conventional IPCC detection and attribution framework. As one climate scientist observes of the event attribution methods, “it is important to appreciate that being quantitative is not necessarily the same thing as being rigorous.” With a focus on scientific rigor, here are three rules for accepting the coming avalanche of “event attribution” studies that will without a doubt connect (weasel word) most every extreme weather event with climate change. Rule Number One: Any model used in an event attribution study to quantify a linkage (weasel word) between climate change a specific extreme event should also produce accurate historical climate trends associated with the relevant phenomena. The claim that rainfall from Hurricane Florence was boosted 50% by climate change should have raised immediate doubts because observations have not shown an increase in rainfall related to landfalling hurricanes. Any event attribution study that cannot accurately replicate historical trends using the same model and methods is clearly fatally flawed. A comparison of observations and modeled climate history with respect to the extreme weather phenomena under study should always be included in event attribution results. Rule Number Two: All event attribution studies should be preregistered, which means “committing to analytic steps without advance knowledge of the research outcomes.” All methodological choices should be made transparent in advance of any event attribution study and submitted to an independent registry (there are many examples). All analyses should be subsequently published, including null- and non-findings. Such preregistration can improve the rigor of research. As one event attribution study concluded: “any event attribution statement can—and will—critically depend on the researcher’s decision regarding the framing of the attribution analysis, in particular with respect to the choice of model, counterfactual climate, and boundary conditions.” Preregistration will make such choices transparent. Any event attribution study conducted in the absence of preregistration is of questionable value. Rule Number Three: All event attribution studies should integrate their findings with the traditional approach to detection and attribution of the IPCC. Event attribution studies often result is what is called “attribution without detection.” This means linking (weasel word) a specific extreme event with climate change in the absence of detecting any increase in the relevant characteristics of such events – as with attributing Hurricane Florence rainfall (or some fraction of it) to climate change, but without detecting a corresponding long-term increase in rainfall in the climatological record of U.S. hurricanes. Event attribution and the conventional IPCC approach can be integrated by calculating the emergence timescale of trends in the characteristics of the extreme weather event in question, using the same model and methods of the event attribution study. For instance, any event attribution study of a single hurricane’s rainfall should always be accompanied by a quantitative estimate of when changes over time across all hurricanes should be detectable under the conventional IPCC framework. In this way, event attribution studies can be made fully consistent with the IPCC approach. Individual event attribution studies are here to stay. They fill a strong demand in advocacy and in politics. Meeting such demand should be fully compatible with basic standards of scientific quality. For event attribution studies to be conducted with the highest degree of rigor they should (1) demonstrate consistency with historical observations, (2) be the product of preregistered studies, and (3) be fully integrated with the conventional methodologies of the IPCC. Until event attribution studies meet these basic rules, they will better serve purposes of advocacy rather than science. more at the link
" 3rd Monday of Each January is the Most Depressing Day of the Year" * *science supports the fact i made up above
This is a false dichotomy that we can only address climate change by destroying our economies. Technology has vastly improved and we have the technology right now to go carbon neutral and still largely maintain our way of life. This will cost a lot and require major changes to our infrastructure but like every great change for what we lose there will be opportunities. The internal combustion engine doomed horses and steam powered engines devastating those industries yet no one would argue that it destroyed our economies. In the same way renewable energy and non fossil fueled engines will be crippling to the fossil fuel industry but those are already opening up new economic opportunities.
Not to mention the cost of slacking on climate change would inflict on our children's economy. You can view climate change as a very high-interest loan, we need to do all we can to pay it off as soon as possible, put ourselves on the Dave Ramsey plan.
pretty sure the only technology yet that would get us close to carbon neutral and maintain our way of life is nuclear--and we're not likely (politically) to see the kind of scale-up of nuclear that it would take to get there in our lifetimes. And if by "we" we're talking about the entire human race, I don't think China and India want to "maintain" their populations' way of life--both countries (as well as many others) are actively working to increase their quality of living . . . so although carbon neutrality is the right goal to shoot for, we shouldn't deceive ourselves in thinking that we are in position "right now" to achieve it. But that's mostly for political reasons.
