jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 17, 2016 18:48:55 GMT
Sorry guys, but my contention that "nutcase" climate change theories have gone mainstream is well supported by the POTUS's claim that "climate change" is a greater threat to society than wild-eyed fanatics trying to behead, disembowel, dismember, or shoot every "infidel" they can get their hands on. My younger son was a replacement in the unit shot up at Ft. Hood. Victims have not received Purple Heart benefits because Obama insists that a self-proclaimed Muslim Jihadist shouting "Alahu Akbar" is an incidence of "workplace violence," not terrorism!
What I mean, ignorantianescia, is that the "science" taught in the BSCS, CHEM-Study, and PSSC curricula and in the instructions for science fairs across the nation is a load of midden! Besides the inability to distinguish cause from coincidence and the short shrift given to the vital role of assumptions, as I have previously pointed out, conventional science has no mechanism for applying its discoveries, rendering it an exercise in trivial pursuit. French philosophers quickly latched onto Newton's failure to account for God's provisional grace in his mechanics to justify the French Revolution. What they ignored is that a universe that cannot be controlled by God cannot be controlled by man either! While most manufacturers deal with this problem by hiring experience engineers away from their competitors, GE implemented the Advanced Course in Engineering in 1923 to train a new generation of engineers to replace venerables like Steinmetz. A major focus of GE's course is the expeditious use of assumptions through identifying implicit assumptions needed to solve technical problems. Likewise Albert Einstein, in "The Evolution of Physics" emphasized historical analysis for the proper understanding of scientific principles and the extent of their validity.
Your proposed mechanism conflates two fundamentally different forms of energy. The specific species of gas is irrelevant to the resulting energy balance. In hundreds of temperature rise experiments I have conducted, stasis is achieved within 1-2 hours. Any "storage" of IR energy in greenhouse gases quickly dissipates and is irrelevant to the final result.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 18, 2016 7:29:43 GMT
Sorry guys, but my contention that "nutcase" climate change theories have gone mainstream is well supported by the POTUS's claim that "climate change" is a greater threat to society than wild-eyed fanatics trying to behead, disembowel, dismember, or shoot every "infidel" they can get their hands on. My younger son was a replacement in the unit shot up at Ft. Hood. Victims have not received Purple Heart benefits because Obama insists that a self-proclaimed Muslim Jihadist shouting "Alahu Akbar" is an incidence of "workplace violence," not terrorism! Sorry on my part as well, but I can't do a lot with this. Few of us here arguing for the reality of climate change owe allegiance of any kind to the POTUS or the USA, I am not sufficiently up to scratch with the politics to know what has happened and to be honest I doubt that you've described Obama's actions charitably. What I mean, ignorantianescia, is that the "science" taught in the BSCS, CHEM-Study, and PSSC curricula and in the instructions for science fairs across the nation is a load of midden! Besides the inability to distinguish cause from coincidence and the short shrift given to the vital role of assumptions, as I have previously pointed out, conventional science has no mechanism for applying its discoveries, rendering it an exercise in trivial pursuit. French philosophers quickly latched onto Newton's failure to account for God's provisional grace in his mechanics to justify the French Revolution. What they ignored is that a universe that cannot be controlled by God cannot be controlled by man either! While most manufacturers deal with this problem by hiring experience engineers away from their competitors, GE implemented the Advanced Course in Engineering in 1923 to train a new generation of engineers to replace venerables like Steinmetz. A major focus of GE's course is the expeditious use of assumptions through identifying implicit assumptions needed to solve technical problems. Likewise Albert Einstein, in "The Evolution of Physics" emphasized historical analysis for the proper understanding of scientific principles and the extent of their validity. You have mentioned parts of this before, and it clearly seems important to you, but could you state what this in practice means for your evaluation of climate science? What test do you suppose to improve the chances of finding causative links? Your proposed mechanism conflates two fundamentally different forms of energy. That seems unlikely, because the only form of exchanged energy that appeared in my basic mechanical description is thermal radiation. Could you explain what you think the conflation is? The specific species of gas is irrelevant to the resulting energy balance. This depends on what you mean with energy balance. Carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases obviously don't introduce any new energy* on their own. But they do return a larger share of thermal radiation to the surface than otherwise would have happened. So I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I've said. * At least no energy of the relevant kind, of course being matter these particles are themselves energy and also introduce kinetic energy into the atmosphere when released, but we're not interested in that now. The specific species of gas is irrelevant to the resulting energy balance. In hundreds of temperature rise experiments I have conducted, stasis is achieved within 1-2 hours. Could you describe those experiments in sufficient detail for us to comment? Did they involve a domination by thermal radiation or were convection or conduction more important? Any "storage" of IR energy in greenhouse gases quickly dissipates and is irrelevant to the final result. If it would dissipate, it would still mean an atmosphere that is net warmer (because kinetic energy has been spread across the gases in it). But you are not addressing what I've actually said, because the claim was that some blackbody radiation from the Earth is returned to the surface.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 22, 2016 19:56:16 GMT
Sorry guys, but my contention that "nutcase" climate change theories have gone mainstream is well supported by the POTUS's claim that "climate change" is a greater threat to society than wild-eyed fanatics trying to behead, disembowel, dismember, or shoot every "infidel" they can get their hands on. My younger son was a replacement in the unit shot up at Ft. Hood. Victims have not received Purple Heart benefits because Obama insists that a self-proclaimed Muslim Jihadist shouting "Alahu Akbar" is an incidence of "workplace violence," not terrorism! Sorry on my part as well, but I can't do a lot with this. Few of us here arguing for the reality of climate change owe allegiance of any kind to the POTUS or the USA, I am not sufficiently up to scratch with the politics to know what has happened and to be honest I doubt that you've described Obama's actions charitably. On 22 separate occasions Obama declared climate change to be a greater threat than terrorism. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/14/22-times-obama-admin-declared-climate-change-greater-threat-terrorism/ ) This goes to show how “nutcase” science is the mainstream opinion. What I mean, ignorantianescia, is that the "science" taught in the BSCS, CHEM-Study, and PSSC curricula and in the instructions for science fairs across the nation is a load of midden! Besides the inability to distinguish cause from coincidence and the short shrift given to the vital role of assumptions, as I have previously pointed out, conventional science has no mechanism for applying its discoveries, rendering it an exercise in trivial pursuit. French philosophers quickly latched onto Newton's failure to account for God's provisional grace in his mechanics to justify the French Revolution. What they ignored is that a universe that cannot be controlled by God cannot be controlled by man either! While most manufacturers deal with this problem by hiring experience engineers away from their competitors, GE implemented the Advanced Course in Engineering in 1923 to train a new generation of engineers to replace venerables like Steinmetz. A major focus of GE's course is the expeditious use of assumptions through identifying implicit assumptions needed to solve technical problems. Likewise Albert Einstein, in "The Evolution of Physics" emphasized historical analysis for the proper understanding of scientific principles and the extent of their validity. You have mentioned parts of this before, and it clearly seems important to you, but could you state what this in practice means for your evaluation of climate science? What test do you suppose to improve the chances of finding causative links? This was in response to unkleE’s query as to why thousands of climate scientists could be so wrong. The short answer being that they have not been taught legitimate science. To avoid circular reasoning, the individual causative links in a structural model must have testable consequences not directly related to the phenomenon being explained by the overall structural model. Your proposed mechanism conflates two fundamentally different forms of energy. That seems unlikely, because the only form of exchanged energy that appeared in my basic mechanical description is thermal radiation. Could you explain what you think the conflation is? You are confusing radiant energy transfer with thermal energy. The kinetic energy of two gas molecules traveling in opposite directions add to increase the net thermal energy, while two photons traveling in opposite directions cancel out any radiant energy transfer. Any radiant energy transfer only occurs normal to the radiating surface. The specific species of gas is irrelevant to the resulting energy balance. This depends on what you mean with energy balance. Carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases obviously don't introduce any new energy* on their own. But they do return a larger share of thermal radiation to the surface than otherwise would have happened. So I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I've said. * At least no energy of the relevant kind, of course being matter these particles are themselves energy and also introduce kinetic energy into the atmosphere when released, but we're not interested in that now. An irradiated surface increases in temperature until the resulting emitted radiation cancels out any net radiant energy transfer, creating an energy balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. The specific species of gas is irrelevant to the resulting energy balance. In hundreds of temperature rise experiments I have conducted, stasis is achieved within 1-2 hours. Could you describe those experiments in sufficient detail for us to comment? Did they involve a domination by thermal radiation or were convection or conduction more important? The experiments involved predicting the temperature rise of equipment enclosures of diverse shapes. All modes of energy transfer were involved including radiation, conduction, and both forced and natural convection. One such experiment involved trouble-shooting a customer complaint about an excessive failure rate in a particular equipment bay. I found that another cabinet had been placed about 6” from the back of the equipment bay in question, blocking radiant energy transfer into free space. From the dimensions of the equipment bay and the energy dissipated inside the cabinet, I was able to calculate the temperature rise inside the cabinet, which accounted for the increased failure rate. The problem was solved by adding an air conditioning duct to the enclosure. Another involved modelling a deep fat fryer to evaluate a temperature control algorithm. The fryer is designed to not dissipate heat energy, so that any overshoot in the controller would result in a potential burn hazard. The fryer consisted of a heating coil that irradiated the vat containing the cooking oil.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 23, 2016 9:10:50 GMT
Sorry guys, but my contention that "nutcase" climate change theories have gone mainstream is well supported by the POTUS's claim that "climate change" is a greater threat to society than wild-eyed fanatics trying to behead, disembowel, dismember, or shoot every "infidel" they can get their hands on. Hi Jonkon, I wonder if you could share the data, please, that this statement is based on? Here is the data I found ... Deaths by terrorism fluctuate, but here are some annual figures for worldwide deaths by terrorism: 2006- 20,487 2007- 22,719 2008- 15,708 2009- 15,310 2010- 13,186 2011- 12,533 2012- 11,098 2013- 18,066 2014- 32,763 2015- 28,328 These figures are approximately confirmed by other references, such as this newspaper report. So the average over 10 years was about 19,000, with the average over the last 3 years of just over 26,000. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates: "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress." Thus the estimate is for climate change deaths to be about 10 times current terrorism deaths.
To put these figures in perspective, here are a few other global mortality figures: - Something like 200,000 to 500,000 Iraqis died in the 9 years when the US and allies invaded Iraq = about 40,000 pa.
- The total number of deaths in wars (i.e. state-based conflicts) has been estimated at roughly 50,000 pa. But this report suggests the figures may be somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 pa in recent years. Perhaps 100,000 pa is a reasonable estimate.
- Somewhere between 800,000 and more than a million people die from suicide each year.
- More than half a million people are murdered globally each year.
- The number of road deaths per year worldwide is about 1.25 million.
- In the 70 years since world war 2, the US military has killed about 20 million people in 37 "victim nations" = about 30,000 per year.
- In the US, annual gun deaths are about 32,000, approx 11,000 homicides and 21,000 suicides. In the period 2001 to 2013, 3380 US citizens at home and abroad were killed by terrorism, while 406,496 were killed at home by guns (making about 130,000 gun homicides).
All of this shows that: 1. Terrorism is a smaller risk, globally, and in the US, than being murdered, killed on the roads or killed in warfare. 2. Globally, people have more to fear from the US armed forces than they do from terrorists. 3. The deaths from climate change are estimated to far exceed those from war and terrorism combined, though will be less than those killed on the roads or in homicides. I think those figures are sobering.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 23, 2016 14:43:29 GMT
I am more concerned about "actual" deaths than "expected" deaths.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 23, 2016 17:26:19 GMT
Sorry on my part as well, but I can't do a lot with this. Few of us here arguing for the reality of climate change owe allegiance of any kind to the POTUS or the USA, I am not sufficiently up to scratch with the politics to know what has happened and to be honest I doubt that you've described Obama's actions charitably. On 22 separate occasions Obama declared climate change to be a greater threat than terrorism. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/14/22-times-obama-admin-declared-climate-change-greater-threat-terrorism/ ) This goes to show how “nutcase” science is the mainstream opinion. Regardless of how accurate the source is, this is a political opinion from Obama and doesn't establish at all that mainstream science is "nutcase". You have mentioned parts of this before, and it clearly seems important to you, but could you state what this in practice means for your evaluation of climate science? What test do you suppose to improve the chances of finding causative links? This was in response to unkleE’s query as to why thousands of climate scientists could be so wrong. The short answer being that they have not been taught legitimate science. To avoid circular reasoning, the individual causative links in a structural model must have testable consequences not directly related to the phenomenon being explained by the overall structural model. Do you reckon that you have ascertained that no individual causative links have been tested in climate science? Can you demonstrate this by referring to the relevant literature? I mean, the astrophysical understanding of Venus comes to mind again as an independent example. That seems unlikely, because the only form of exchanged energy that appeared in my basic mechanical description is thermal radiation. Could you explain what you think the conflation is? You are confusing radiant energy transfer with thermal energy. The kinetic energy of two gas molecules traveling in opposite directions add to increase the net thermal energy, while two photons traveling in opposite directions cancel out any radiant energy transfer. Any radiant energy transfer only occurs normal to the radiating surface. Well, no. "Thermal energy" can be loosely used in physics, especially in astronomy, for heat. That doesn't suggest any confusion on my part. This can be easily verified through a simple search. What's more worrying is that nothing I wrote even suggested I meant the average kinetic energy of gas molecules in my discussion. There is no mention of any distribution that relates temperature and speed in my description, which would be expected if I actually used kinetic energy anywhere. Indeed, I have been talking about radiation all the time. So I don't think suggesting I confuse concepts is a charitable reading. This depends on what you mean with energy balance. Carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases obviously don't introduce any new energy* on their own. But they do return a larger share of thermal radiation to the surface than otherwise would have happened. So I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I've said. * At least no energy of the relevant kind, of course being matter these particles are themselves energy and also introduce kinetic energy into the atmosphere when released, but we're not interested in that now. An irradiated surface increases in temperature until the resulting emitted radiation cancels out any net radiant energy transfer, creating an energy balance of incoming and outgoing radiation. Well, carbon dioxide is obviously relevant to any energy balance of the Earth, because it can return some of the Earth's blackbody radiation to the surface. That changes how much energy leaves the system immediately. Could you describe those experiments in sufficient detail for us to comment? Did they involve a domination by thermal radiation or were convection or conduction more important? The experiments involved predicting the temperature rise of equipment enclosures of diverse shapes. All modes of energy transfer were involved including radiation, conduction, and both forced and natural convection. One such experiment involved trouble-shooting a customer complaint about an excessive failure rate in a particular equipment bay. I found that another cabinet had been placed about 6” from the back of the equipment bay in question, blocking radiant energy transfer into free space. From the dimensions of the equipment bay and the energy dissipated inside the cabinet, I was able to calculate the temperature rise inside the cabinet, which accounted for the increased failure rate. The problem was solved by adding an air conditioning duct to the enclosure. Another involved modelling a deep fat fryer to evaluate a temperature control algorithm. The fryer is designed to not dissipate heat energy, so that any overshoot in the controller would result in a potential burn hazard. The fryer consisted of a heating coil that irradiated the vat containing the cooking oil. I am sure you are good at your work, but I fail to see how these are adequate tests for a greenhouse effect. None of them involved GHGs absorbing and re-emitting thermal radiation in a context where radiation dominated.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 23, 2016 22:52:42 GMT
I am more concerned about "actual" deaths than "expected" deaths. Well going by actual deaths, terrorism is an extremely mild threat in comparison with vehicular deaths. I looked at the "22 separate occasions Obama declared climate change to be a greater threat than terrorism". I was not surprised to find the source was Breitbart. Nor was I surprised to find that most of the quotations do not say climate change is a greater threat than terrorism; most of them don't mention terrorism at all. In most of them Obama states explicitly that climate change is a " long term threat", so he is very obviously speaking in the long term and not in terms of the immediate future (long term, climate change is indisputably a greater threat than anything else). Nor was I surprised to find that some of the quotations weren't even from Obama, and a couple of them said things like climate change being "a threat as urgent as ISIS" (not greater than terrorism). One of the quotations even said "“sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change"", which is nothing like "Obama declared climate change to be a greater threat than terrorism".
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 24, 2016 8:23:02 GMT
I am more concerned about "actual" deaths than "expected" deaths. Hi Jonkon, if this is so, I'm wondering why you mentioned the terrorism-climate change comparison at all. This comparison wasn't the subject of this discussion until you brought it up. But there is worrying pattern here. You have made a number of statements and haven't really backed them up with evidence. You haven't really offered any good scientific evidence against climate change, you have said there is a conspiracy and/or total ignorance by scientists without showing any evidence for such an attack, you made claims about terrorism and climate change that aren't supported by the evidence I presented, and you claimed Obama made statements that Fortigurn has indicated he didn't make. I cannot comment on your claims that you understand gases and climate scientists don't, because I don't claim to have any special understanding of gases, but I would want to see lots of evidence for such outrageous claims. And I would want to be convinced that an understanding if ideal gases in isolation offers much to an understanding of the whole climate system that includes gases, water, energy, wind, rain, oceans, etc. Your claim would be a little like me as a hydrologist reporting that water in rivers always flows down hill because of gravity, and so water cannot flow upwards against gravity. But of course it does exactly that in evaporation. My understanding of river hydraulics isn't sufficient to understand the whole water cycle, and neither, I suggest, is your understanding of gases sufficient to understand the world's climate. So I think I will exit this discussion. I don't want to get into an argument or insult you. I don't really even want to change your mind about climate change. But I don't think it is going to be productive to keep discussing when you seem deeply committed to viewpoints that seem not to be evidence-based. Doubtless we can discuss something else at some other time. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Oct 25, 2016 2:10:44 GMT
here are some annual figures for worldwide deaths by terrorism... and The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates: "Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause
Even the first set of figures is somewhat based on models, since no one goes out and counts such noses; but the second set is entirely fantasy-based. That is: based on models of what might happen in the future. Layfolk don't handle statistics very well and often confuse model outputs with data, and that includes scientists outside the field of statistics. For one thing, a statistical association is not a causal relationship, even when actual paired data has been measured on the same units.
In particular, model outputs set safely beyond 2030 can hardly be called "evidence."
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 26, 2016 8:38:31 GMT
In particular, model outputs set safely beyond 2030 can hardly be called "evidence." Hi, thanks for your input, but I think this is a curious statement. The Oxford Dictionary defines evidence: "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." So evidence may be more than facts or data, but "information". And information is defined as "1. Facts provided or learned about something or someone..... 2. What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."According to Wikipedia, scientific evidence is "evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method."The legal definition of evidence is testimony that is "intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial)." It goes on to say: "Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence."So model outputs can be evidence if they are used to explain or answer a question (testimony), provided they are in accordance with the scientific method. There are many examples of how data on its own is not very useful, but becomes useful when interpreted by an expert, or via statistics or a model. - If I have an X-ray or a scan, I can be given the results (the data) but they would be meaningless to me because I don't have the expertise to interpret them. But a medical specialist can tell me a lot from them.
- A mass of census data may tell me very little, but if it is analysed by a statistician, useful results can be gleaned - e.g. about the ageing of the population.
- In my field of hydrology, flood forecasting is a very useful and important activity, because it allows people living near a river to evacuate, and thus saves life and property. Flood forecasting will generally be done via a model, which includes various rainfall and river flow stations as input, and predicts flood heights and times downstream. This is very useful information, and could be used as evidence in court or in a flood evacuation.
So a model output (or statistics, or an interpretation) can be good evidence, and tell us a lot more that is useful than the raw data can tell us. It is quite normal to want to be able to predict things well in advance. For example: So I conclude that climate is something that it makes sense to want to know well in advance. A scientific model is the best way to attempt to estimate future climate, it produces evidence that is important, and a 20 year time horizon is quite appropriate. All prediction is approximate, but a good prediction is better than none at all (which is like putting our heads in the sand). If you can show why we don't need to try to assess the affects of the recent (half century) spectacular rise in temperature levels, or you can suggest a better way to estimate those effects than scientific models, then I would be keen to hear them. But without either or both of those, I support those who are making the attempt to make these important predictions the best way they know how. I think it is folly to ignore this evidence, especially by disparaging the best results available.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Dec 10, 2016 16:27:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 11, 2016 9:16:09 GMT
The confusing thing about the way that we've had the two hottest years on record (due to an El Nino event but with moderate underlying warming), is that this seems to have had no effect on anything significant. OK, so environmentalists have become adept at finding anecdotes (Arctic ice is news when down and not when up, coral bleaching is news when it happens, not when it recovers), but look at the big picture from the UN: www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/TLDR? World food prices are dropping, and the big picture is they haven't changed much since the 1960s. Meanwhile, cereal stocks and production are at an all time high. It is hard to think of anything that should be more vulnerable to climate change than food production and prices. But these two exceptionally warm years haven't even moved the needle. This is, if we are to believe the doomsayers, quite odd. OK, so we might not expect full fat doom just yet but surely there would be some effect. The most likely explanation is that the moderate warming we are seeing is something the planet can easily adapt to because it is the sort of thing that happens all the time. The importance of world prices, of course, is they reflect the bad news (that the press and Greens are so keen to report) and the good news, which generally goes unmentioned. So they are a much better indicator of the situation than the background noise on the internet and in the media. BTW, on coral bleaching, this from the noted right-wing climate denialist organ, Slate, is fascinating: www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2016/05/here_s_how_the_great_barrier_reef_could_still_recover.htmlIt seems that bleaching is an adaptive mechanism to deal with short term changes. The fact it is adaptive shows that these changes are expected by the organisms and have been happening for millions of years. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Dec 13, 2016 7:25:28 GMT
The confusing thing about the way that we've had the two hottest years on record (due to an El Nino event but with moderate underlying warming), is that this seems to have had no effect on anything significant. OK, so environmentalists have become adept at finding anecdotes (Arctic ice is news when down and not when up, coral bleaching is news when it happens, not when it recovers) James, climate deniers are amazing! When we have a couple of cooler years, they/you say there is a pause. Then when we have some hot years, you say that the world hasn't ended yet. This is great spin but lousy science! Let's look at the true picture as revealed by good science. We can see now that all the words about the global pause (which you contributed to) were nonsense - There is a steady trend of rising temperatures overlain by El Nino and La Nina variations and other less predictable causes. global-temp to 2016 by unkkleE, on Flickr Let me repeat what I've said before - graphs like this prove very little - it is models based on good science which count - but in this case the graph shows what the models show. The so-called pause can be seen for what it always was - a beat up by deniers trying to find some statistics they could use, but in reality just a small variation about a consistent trend. I suggest your other statements here fall into similar categories. Let's look at a few facts (not anecdotes). 1. Bushfires are a major threat to life, property and the economy in Australia, and models, warnings, emergency procedures have been very well developed. And the data shows that bushfires are getting worse - hotter, drier weather leading to increased number of days of dangerous fire potential because the season is starting earlier and lasting longer. 2. Polar ice is still retreating overall, and is currently at record low levels. Of course you can find the usual spin when a variation shows things in a more positive light, such as when the September 2016 figures were better than some recent years (you can usually spot these denial attempts because they are generally very selective about the data and time periods they use). But ongoing data shows that was a short term anomaly, and the overall data shows that the retreat continues and temperatures at the north pole are an[/a] unprecedented 20 degrees above and sea ice is well below the previous lowest year. 3. I have reported here before the fact that both scientists and insurers know that destructive storms are becoming more intense and more frequent. Data continues to bear this out - e.g. for the US, and east Asia, and the predictions are that they will keep on getting worse. 4. Sea levels are slowly rising and overall the rate has increased slightly. Again, the deniers try to find a statistic they can use to say something different - e.g. this report in the Murdoch press in Australia that the rate of rise (which they can't deny) may be slowing, but the overall picture remains, and this rise is having several significant effects - it is increasing flooding in some locations, polluting groundwater with salt and increasing the impact of greater storm surges along coastlines - e.g. in Tuvulu. Several islands have been submerged and others severely eroded in the Solomon Islands not significant in world terms (though important locally), but a sign of things to come. Impacts on major infrastructure are predicted to be severe in the future. 5. It won't worry me much, but climate change is predicted to have a major impact on coffee production in the years ahead. 6. One of the most desperate and heart-breaking impacts of climate change with be on North Africa, where drought is already a major killer in countries like Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia. One of the predicted impacts of climate change is a significantly drier North Africa, and a 2014 study showed that this is already occurring. It concluded: Finally the Reef, where you say: James, this is akin to telling a friend who has been given 3 months to live due to virulent cancer that they shouldn't worry, they're still alive aren't they. The report you quote makes clear that yes, coral can adapt, but not at the rate change is occurring! Check out these quotes: The truth is that the Great Barrier Reef is facing a bleak future. Like all these other stats, things are slowly getting worse, and there will be insufficient opportunity for recovery. I think it is time to face facts. The data is clear, the harm is already occurring. Just like the smoking lobby fought off the facts for decades, the powerful fossil fuel lobby, aided and abetted by the Murdoch press and other conservatives, have been desperately spinning the minor anomalies while ignoring the hard data, and many conservative people have believed them. I think you can do better than that, and I hope you are willing to look at the data without your conservative glasses on. I'm sorry to go about this. You must have a sinking feeling in your stomach every time I post on this, just as I have when you post. But this is too important to ignore. It is time to stop focusing on minor anomalies and look at the mass of hard data. Already, much damage has been done by climate denial, but it will get worse. Enough is surely enough.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Dec 18, 2016 11:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 18, 2016 20:46:54 GMT
|
|