#1039314 - 7/12/2011 08:29
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Locke]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 7/02/2008
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
|
Temps may rise, temps may fall due to various solar, volcanic, ocean, ocean-atmosphere interactions, albedo changes, particle changes, orbital changes, meteor hits, etc, etc.
The best plan is to run and change/adapt with the flow, as we have always done well, with much less cost...As the chances of either heat or cold or nothing occurring are just the same in reality...and with solar lull for next 30 or more years highly more likely short-term colder conditions, planning for heating alone is in reality a very unwise move, false logic, and an extreme huge waste of money....Better spent on improving food production, cutting real toxic and particle pollution, stopping tropical forest clearance, creating more better efficient power technology, helping the environment in all areas by using beneficial to food production and beneficial to the environment at the same time type solutions, and helping those in real need, etc.
Edited by bd bucketingdown (7/12/2011 08:33)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039373 - 7/12/2011 10:45
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: bd bucketingdown]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 13/07/2007
Loc: Brisbane
|
The point of this thread is that uncertainty in climate change projections is a bad thing. There were a few attempts to argue that uncertainty/risk was not a reason for concern. But now its degenerated to nonsense claims that have nothing to do with whether uncertainty/risk is a problem or not. Claims such as'we should be scared of a solar funk' (when the last solar funk was when we saw the massively disastrous period for mankind otherwise known as the rennaisance) Or claims that because natural variation happens we can't predict anything at all about the climate. Or claims that because warming over a period of millenia or more was good for the dinasours then warming over a period of a few decades or more should be good for people. The favourite denial tactic of the Gish Gallop
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039394 - 7/12/2011 12:01
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Mike Hauber]
|
Weather Freak
Registered: 11/07/2010
|
The uncertainty should be significantly reduced compared to that surmised by the simple fact that we have observed how the real climate has actually responded since mankind started increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere - since around 1765 or 246 years later.
That is more than enough time to see that even 3.0C per doubling is greatly exaggerated let alone 6.4C per doubling (by around 2100, although doubling should occur around 2060).
Even the uncertainty is exaggerated.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039426 - 7/12/2011 13:32
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Bill Illis]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 27/12/2007
Loc: Brisbane
|
Mike the core of your original post was that although there are uncertainties in climate science we know enough to warrant taking action.
Many of us disagree because when weighing up the pros and cons, although there may be significant consequences arising from some of the less likely scenarios presented with regards possible AGW impacts, there are some undeniably serious consequences arising from the actions being proposed to address the issue.
At the moment, the case simply is not strong enough, even given some of the more hysterical doomsday scenarios being suggested (read 10m sea level rises etc) to justify the action being undertaken.
I think to a large extent climate scientists have become victims of a political and corporate juggernaut that is running out of control. I'm not one to believe in grand conspiracy theories but I do believe in "the elephant in the room" and to me this is what we now have in climate science.
I'm not sure anyone really controls things in a "conspiratorial" manner but with so much wealth and power at stake I'm damn sure people are protecting their interests.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039527 - 7/12/2011 16:49
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Locke]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 7/02/2008
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
|
We have lived with uncertainty in climate and climate change since time began, Mike, we are still here!
Deny what...Nothing to deny from us, we examine all the science and angles...You mainly seem to be on a one eyed track with blinkers firmly on, if that is not denial then I don't know what is!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039569 - 7/12/2011 18:04
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: bd bucketingdown]
|
Meteorological Motor Mouth
Registered: 16/12/2001
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
|
I have a lot of trouble understanding statements from climatologists that we are getting warmer, when Brisbane has its coldest December day since 1888 and Sydney, its coldest since 1960, and when it feels more like an English summer. Humans are not capable of influencing the climate to that degree, and anyone who thinks we can do that is very very deceived...by the methodology and philosophy of science itself...or worse, the politics that contaminate it.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039573 - 7/12/2011 18:17
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Keith]
|
Weather Freak
Registered: 5/10/2010
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
|
I heard an interview on the radio ABC radio today(didn't catch the name of the interviewee). Apparantly the updated research now shows that temperatures are still going to rise but now we are going to see fewer cyclones which will be more severe(pretty sure we were going to see more cyclones in the original scaremongering stories). And the biggest crackup of the lot is that whereas not too long ago we were all told that without a doubt australia was going to experience neverending drought of biblical proportins, we are now apparantly going to experience more rain than before annd of course this will include more extreme rain events as well. The oceans are also going to increase in acidity, probably to the point where everything in it floats to the surface dead. Come on warmistas. At least have the decency to pick a story and stick to it. All your doing is going with the current trends and claiming this is what will happen in the future. Show some backbone for christs sake.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039582 - 7/12/2011 18:26
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Brett Guy]
|
Meteorological Motor Mouth
Registered: 16/12/2001
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
|
That's why I always view the ABC's opinions with greatest contempt.
The only thing that seems worthwhile is ABC Classic FM..when it too isn't being muddied with political propaganda. They even gave largesse once to a symphony orchestra without a conductor, as an example of 'socialism in action'.
Heaven spare me from such tommy rot.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039947 - 8/12/2011 14:35
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Keith]
|
Weather Freak
Registered: 31/01/2011
Loc: Jindalee, QLD
|
What puts me off is that while scientists and those educated in this field know full well that there is uncertainty about climate sensitivity, degrees of warming related to increases in CO2 etc, when talking about the potential consequences they are stated almost as fact. As Brett Guy said, all these dire consequences about more severe cyclones, more severe rain events, ocean acidity killing shellfish...they do always start their sentences with "we may see" or "we will likely see" which, yes, indicates uncertainty. But that's not what your average person hears, and they know that.
Their scaremongering is amplified when newspapers and other media republish quotes as headlines by simply dropping the "we may see" or "we will likely see" from the statements. Suddenly you get "More Severe Cyclones, Floods and Bushfires from global warming" instead of "we may see more..."
It's misleading. It's dishonest. And the scientists/commentators who are guilty of it put their hands up and say "I don't write the headlines".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1039971 - 8/12/2011 15:30
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Coxy]
|
Weather Freak
Registered: 5/10/2010
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
|
Well said Coxy. The media has space limitations and lets face it. They are a buisness. They will take the heart of a quote and use it. This does not actually mean the are dishonest(some are, most are not). Warmistas know damn well what type of quotes will be used and I don't see them coming out after the fact and correcting the misinterpretations(they only do this after it is proven that they were wrong whiich seems to happen quite often).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1040175 - 9/12/2011 09:33
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Coxy]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 13/07/2007
Loc: Brisbane
|
What puts me off is that while scientists and those educated in this field know full well that there is uncertainty about climate sensitivity, degrees of warming related to increases in CO2 etc, when talking about the potential consequences they are stated almost as fact. As Brett Guy said, all these dire consequences about more severe cyclones, more severe rain events, ocean acidity killing shellfish...they do always start their sentences with "we may see" or "we will likely see" which, yes, indicates uncertainty. But that's not what your average person hears, and they know that.
Their scaremongering is amplified when newspapers and other media republish quotes as headlines by simply dropping the "we may see" or "we will likely see" from the statements. Suddenly you get "More Severe Cyclones, Floods and Bushfires from global warming" instead of "we may see more..."
It's misleading. It's dishonest. And the scientists/commentators who are guilty of it put their hands up and say "I don't write the headlines". In contrast to the 'skeptical' side of the debate which would never state anything as an absolute fact and readily acknowledge the fact that there is uncertainty in their belief in solar and natural cycles, and that it is possible they may be wrong and its caused by Co2 after all.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1040176 - 9/12/2011 09:40
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Locke]
|
Weatherzone Addict
Registered: 13/07/2007
Loc: Brisbane
|
Mike the core of your original post was that although there are uncertainties in climate science we know enough to warrant taking action.
Many of us disagree because when weighing up the pros and cons, although there may be significant consequences arising from some of the less likely scenarios presented with regards possible AGW impacts, there are some undeniably serious consequences arising from the actions being proposed to address the issue.
At the moment, the case simply is not strong enough, even given some of the more hysterical doomsday scenarios being suggested (read 10m sea level rises etc) to justify the action being undertaken.
I think to a large extent climate scientists have become victims of a political and corporate juggernaut that is running out of control. I'm not one to believe in grand conspiracy theories but I do believe in "the elephant in the room" and to me this is what we now have in climate science.
I'm not sure anyone really controls things in a "conspiratorial" manner but with so much wealth and power at stake I'm damn sure people are protecting their interests.
Best practice economic theory is that you do not make a decision on whether the costs of AGW outweigh the costs of reducing carbon. You put a price on carbon to reflect the costs of AGW and let market forces decide the ideal balance between reducing Carbon and reducing AGW, and using Carbon to obtain the benefits of cheap energy etc. My argument is that uncertainty means that the price we put on carbon should be higher than the price we would put if we consider only the average expected case. Wiki article on externality
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1040180 - 9/12/2011 10:02
Re: Uncertainty in Climate Change.
[Re: Mike Hauber]
|
Weather Freak
Registered: 31/01/2011
Loc: Jindalee, QLD
|
What puts me off is that while scientists and those educated in this field know full well that there is uncertainty about climate sensitivity, degrees of warming related to increases in CO2 etc, when talking about the potential consequences they are stated almost as fact. As Brett Guy said, all these dire consequences about more severe cyclones, more severe rain events, ocean acidity killing shellfish...they do always start their sentences with "we may see" or "we will likely see" which, yes, indicates uncertainty. But that's not what your average person hears, and they know that.
Their scaremongering is amplified when newspapers and other media republish quotes as headlines by simply dropping the "we may see" or "we will likely see" from the statements. Suddenly you get "More Severe Cyclones, Floods and Bushfires from global warming" instead of "we may see more..."
It's misleading. It's dishonest. And the scientists/commentators who are guilty of it put their hands up and say "I don't write the headlines". In contrast to the 'skeptical' side of the debate which would never state anything as an absolute fact and readily acknowledge the fact that there is uncertainty in their belief in solar and natural cycles, and that it is possible they may be wrong and its caused by Co2 after all. Quite true. The entire issue is completely torn apart by self interest. Action on it is stupid until all the activists - for and against - are shut out of the decision making. In other news, hell should freeze over and pigs should fly long haul Brisbane to LA daily.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
26566 Members
31 Forums
21099 Topics
1137302 Posts
Max Online: 2925 @ 2/02/2011 22:23
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index