Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewPicking boogers can help reverse climate change.
That's as maybe, But still the environment takes a toll if you abstain from engaging in the "noble art of cleansing your nasal cavities from unwanted debris of sort" as the British Academy of Boogerpickering so eloquently would have put it.
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
Indeed, The environment takes a toll through the methods you described in round 1, However, People don't eat food to the exact amount of energy they need. We, As humans, Overeat and consume more than necessary - especially in Western civilisations. This would mean that the impact of picking your nose would be negligible.
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
Attack on my sources I find it quite hilarious, that Pro attacks integrity of my sources while she depends on sources like Mann et al. (Climategate, "Hide the decline"[1]) or Hansen, who was caught manipulating data [2 and last round] and prevented scientists under him to publish their results that disagreed with him [3] etc. Or IPCC, that misrepresent what the scientists say [4], and RealClimate, which is basically web promoting Mann et al. point of view. It's quite obvious who gets the most money in "climate science" [5]. In fact all those climate scientists funds depend on AGW, so its not skeptics who have the major monetary interests in this phenomenon. I may retract my source of the third quote, but then Pro would have to retract a lot of her sources. Santer Before Santer tries to accuse others, he should correct the way he works with data [6]. His study was refuted by [7]: "Overall, the conclusion of S08 that 'there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modeled and observed trends in tropical lapse rates must be reconsidered in light of upto-date data. The 'potential inconsistency' between models and observations in the tropical region, as reported by Karl et al (2006), remains an issue." Santer is also refuted in [16] (which he tried to delay in peer-review [16b]) and [17] (see part Tropospheric warming below). Hansen Indeed I was not sure what data did Pro compare, I just looked at those closer to each other (land station data). When I wrote about scenario C, I just wanted to make sure that people don't miss what it actually means, since it is closer to measured data than B. Lets look again at the figures in [my previous round source 9], that corresponds to Fig 2 in [Pro's first round source 6]. The Land-Ocean (black curve) nowhere near the scenario B prediction (blue curve) since 2000 aside from two single points 2002 and 2005 where L-O is at local maximum and B is at local minimum. My argument stands. Especially later data from 2006 on make it obvious. Dessler First I would like to apologize for confusion around refuting Dessler. That Spencer et al. 2007 paper directly refutes the previous Dessler's paper and Dessler 2010 fail to address the main issues and instead attacks a straw man. I should have clarified with further information: "To Dessler’s credit, he actually references our paper. But he then immediately discounts our interpretation of the satellite data. Why? Because, as he claims, (1) most of the climate variability during the satellite period of record (2000 to 2010) was due to El Nino and La Nina (which is largely true), and (2) no researcher has ever claimed that El Nino or La Nina are caused by clouds. This simple, blanket claim was then intended to negate all of the evidence we published. But this is not what we were claiming, nor is it a necessary condition for our interpretation to be correct." [8] In contrast to Pro's claim, Dessler didn't make the different conclusion because of larger data set, but because of different methodology, using simple regression. Spencer and Braswell examined the same data set in that same year and came with opposite conclusions [9]. They addressed the time lag in changes by phase space analysis in order to see what is most likely cause and what is effect (which Dessler claims is the other way around). You may get similar regression slope like Dessler derived from the data even for strong negative feedback.[10] "The bottom line is that, you can not use simple regression to infer cloud feedbacks from data like those seen in Dessler’s data plots." [10] To simplify it by analogy, it could be like ice cores "CO2 drives temperature" claim by Al Gore. There was certainly correlation as well, but he ignored the time lag as CO2 follows temperature. Lindzen acknowledged many parts of the criticism and corrected his hypothesis where it was wrong. However, he still refuted conclusions all the papers Pro mentioned [11,12,13]. As I used my space on Dessler, I won't go into details here. Tropospheric warming Conclusions of Sherman and Allen 2008 are refuted [14]. Not only there is much more uncertainty in indirect method based on wind shear due to temperature gradient, they ignored conclusions of previous research on that matter dealing with bias of stronger 200 mbar winds at higher latitudes [15]. Haimberger 2008 is refuted by [16] (addendum to Douglass et al.), because there is bias in homogenization in RAOBCORE 1.4 data as other publications pointed out. “... papers such as Santer et al. 2008 do no testing, but simply assume that all datasets are equal, such as “new” ERSST or “old” RAOBCORE v1.2, v1.3 and v1.4, and thus ignore the publications which have provided the evidence which document significant errors in the ones they prefer."[17] Hansen Pinatubo and Energy imbalance After Hansen was refuted, he made new paper “Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications” in 2011 [18] and admitted: “We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols... Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change.“ Watts and Tisdale wrote some criticism on some of his new claims [19]. Conclusion My findings on general limitations of climate models are unchallenged as well as some of the quotes on reliability of GCM. I offered refutation to the points Pro chose to defend. Why some of the modelers finds hard to admit the counter-evidence or even cheat? Maybe social study of science by Lahsen 2005 [20] will give us some insight: "...persuasive power of the simulations can affect the very process of creating them: modelers are at times tempted to ‘get caught up in’ their own creations and to ‘start to believe’ them, to the point of losing awareness about potential inaccuracies. Erroneous assumptions and questionable interpretations of model accuracy can, in turn, be sustained by the difficulty of validating the model..." Thanks to Pro for a challenging debate. Sources: [1] Video "Hide the decline" http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... [3] http://nige.files.wordpress.com... [4] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... [5] http://climatequotes.com... [6] http://www.john-daly.com... [7] http://arxiv.org... [8] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [9] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [10] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [11] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [12] http://www-eaps.mit.edu... [13] http://eaps.mit.edu... [14] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [15] http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com... [16] http://www.pas.rochester.edu... [16b] http://sppiblog.org... [17] http://icecap.us... [18] http://arxiv.org... [19] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [20] http://www2.geog.ucl.ac.uk...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources. As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification. Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example. " It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11] Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate. Sources 10. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
1 ========= My Argument #1 First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link. Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA). 3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant. 3 ========= My Argument #2 There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever. While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths: --- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means) --- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means) --- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1) Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually. Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs. (1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide. If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere. This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe. I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now. 2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects. 3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority. 4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all. 5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate. 6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs. mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world" Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical. 2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane. 3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use. 4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily. 5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. 6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution. Again, This is not a LOW priority.
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon
Thanks Pro for concise and focused argument. General limitations of Climate modelling In perfect scenario, we would have simple deterministic mathematical model to simulate deterministic phenomena on which we can run multiple experiments with controlled conditions in order to validate the model. While for example engineering simulations can comply with such scenario to some extent, complex phenomena in economic, social or climate sciences are another story. We don't have enough beforehand knowledge about every important climate feedback so we in fact estimate such feedback's with the model itself based on its output compared to measurements. But unless we know all other forcing that can influence output in similar way, we won't get good estimate of the parameter we look for. For example Koutsoyiannis[1] or Tennekes[2] (extending on Poper and Lorenz) challenge the notion that complex models could ever be reliable according to their nature. "Theories that are complex may become untestable, even if they happen to be true."[2] etc. If we look at QT's definition of GCM, it is clear that to fulfill their purpose, those models must have the structure of forcings and feedbacks right. We won't get reliable "scenario predictions", no matter how lucky we are in predicting aggregated mean temperature if the true causes are different then we thought. What is the reliability of current GCMs in scientists eyes? "We compare the output of various climate models to temperature and precipitation observations at 55 points around the globe... Besides confirming the findings of a previous assessment study that model projections at point scale are poor, results show that the spatially integrated projections are also poor."[1] "We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean."[3] "These weaknesses combine to make GCM-based predictions too uncertain to be used as the bases for public policy responses related to future climate changes." [4] "So there has been a large activity to bring models and observations into agreement, strangely only by adjusting the measurements instead of adjusting the models. "[5] Even Kevin Trenberth (from the Mann et al. group) now acknowledges many of the GCM's troubles in his paper "More knowledge, less certainty"[6] publicly. "The scientific literature is filled with studies documenting the inability of even the most advanced GCMs to accurately model radiation, clouds, and precipitation."[7] For those interested, NIPCC report [7] and their topical updates [8] provide comprehensive information about studies dealing with GCM reliability. Refutation As you put it, Hansen's predictions look totally perfect and within 100th of degree of Celsius. Lets examine the claim. "Dr. Jim's 1988 projections weren't looking so good, so he dropped an apple in the middle of his oranges. The red line is land only temperatures, but his projections were for global temperatures."[9] Let us also compare it with satellite [10] and other [11] data. Now suppose I made highly oscillating prediction. At some points in time, my prediction would be always spot on as it would cross the real data. Look back at the figures. Where is this precision from 2006 until now, or in early nineties? Also note that curve C assumes "emissions drastically reduced" in 1990 [10,11]. I therefore call this conduct a fallacy of cherry-picking. On top of that, Hansen is known for not so transparent temperature data manipulation.[12,13] Dessler's assumptions are refuted by Spencer's satellite observations [14], supporting rather Lindzen's hypothesis:"Our measured sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature is -6.1 W *m^-2 K^-1... This decrease in ice cloud coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen's 'infrared iris' hypothesis." "This is exactly opposite of the way all climate models behave," as Spencer put it in his own words in [15]. (technical note: Don't take the whole video as extension of my argument. Its used only as source of the quote in 6:19 and for information purpose as I acknowledge I must make my argument myself on this page within its limitations.) Now lets see the warming troposphere, because it was predicted it would be significantly warmed by CO2 forcing. See figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 for PCM model prediction and 3.4.3 for radiosondes. Updated study [17], taking in account errors stated by Pro, supports overall warming trend in troposphere of +0.052 ± 0.07 K per decade (while RSS temperature is somewhat higher then other methods, but much less then models). That is in good agreement what the figure 3.4.3, but in complete disagreement with figure 3.4.2 (also note the scales). The problem is not whether the troposphere warmed, but how much it warmed (1.2 °C at hotspot vs 0-0.3°C) and how different layers warmed relative to each other. The model predicted much stronger warming in troposphere then on surface, but that is not true. It means that model is wrong about GHG forcing or feedbacks in troposphere. Conclusion Models may be useful in furthering our knowledge of the problem, mostly by showing us what our assumptions really mean. If we are humble enough and learn from comparing our assumptions to measurements, we can learn from our mistakes. But the climate models fail if used as defined by Pro. [1] http://www.tandfonline.com... [2] http://ff.org... [3] http://www.pas.rochester.edu... [4] http://www.ncpa.org... [5] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... [6] http://www.nature.com... [7] http://www.nipccreport.org... [8] http://www.nipccreport.org... [9] http://sppiblog.org... [10] http://www.climate-skeptic.com... [11] http://rankexploits.com... [12] http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com... [13] http://www.omsj.org... [14] http://www.drroyspencer.com... [15] Video: "Why the IPCC Models...." http://www.youtube.com... [16] http://www.nipccreport.org..., pages 106-108 [17] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force
Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance what about Cost of War in Iraq or in Afghanistan, how many people died? how it affects on our enviroment, climate? Thus, from now we have to take into account that If We Spend Money to Control our Climate,we'll live longer and sickness free. Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 $1,378,096,715,743 (not constant) and even Al Gore says that if government spent the money for climate conditions, not for war, the earth would be on the well way to solve this challenge. In addition there is a gold words of Mark Luther King: "Injustices anywhere threat justices everywhere" and Al Gore says in our time, increases of global pollution anywhere, is a threat to human future everywhere. It is absolutely true, people have to deal with problems seriously instead of spending money on military force, war and so on, while there is more serious problem. So let's stop pollution, safe our nature and species Source: http://costofwar.com...
Geoengineering gives time and optimism to climate fight
Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering is potentially the key to unlock the mitigation puzzle—a way of controlling climate risks during the many decades that it will take to transform the global energy system. Asking nations to spend trillions to avoid damages (mostly many) decades in the future while doing little to address warming’s more immediate effects is a difficult task. But if geoengineering can stave off short- and medium-term harms while giving time for a long-term solution to take effect, the result is a coherent policy proposal that may enjoy broader public support."
