Author Topic: Episode #699  (Read 2955 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2018, 09:54:05 AM »
SGU CAGW Rant

What does the 97% consensus really mean?

The 97% number was based on several studies that looked at the number of scientific papers that have been published in support of general AGW theory. I think the common misconception was that this was a poll of climatologists.

Quote
Warming is going to cause grievous harm.  Difficult question, requires an extremely complex analysis of many different fields….certainty is likely very low – 97%  no way!  Motivated reasoning has the “science community” looking mostly for harm and forgetting to look for good.  Steve even said that deaths from high temperature would go up, but as I understand the data deaths from cold may go down even more – perhaps even a net benefit of temperature induced deaths.  How do we know we have found all the plus’s and minus’s for the analysis?

We don't. This is uncharted territory. We are faced, as usual, with making decisions based on incomplete information. The longer we wait for more certainty, the more assuredly we will cross certain tipping points from which there is no return.

It's comforting a bit to hope that more heat deaths will be countered by fewer cold deaths, but many changes only have a downside: sea level rise, spreading pathogens, desertification, ocean acidification, glacial retreat, shifting temperate zones. I dunno. Maybe there are upsides to these. I'm sure someone will know.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 01:53:06 PM by gebobs »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11340
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2018, 11:53:35 AM »
One by product of global warming, beyond warmer temperatures, is more extreme weather. That means more severe hurricanes, longer more severe tornado seasons, more snowfall in some areas, more rain in some, longer and more severe droughts in other  places.

Nowhere have I seen a scientific report predicting fewer deaths from cold.

What we will see, and are already just starting to see,  is more deaths from extreme weather. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2018, 01:03:40 PM »
Anecdotally as far as I've noticed in the news, cold deaths happen because of unusual circumstances other than the weather itself, so I wouldn't expect those stats to change much.

Reading this article, "Cold temperatures kill more Americans than hot ones, CDC data show", I might be missing something about how cold kills, although I could take this quote as supporting my assumptions;

Quote
In their study, the authors found that many deaths attributable to cold happened on moderately cold days (as opposed to extremely cold ones), while a much larger share of heat-attributable deaths happened on days of extreme heat — hinting at the threshold relationship mentioned above.

Heat deaths are definitely going to increase as the number of days with extreme heat increases.

Offline Billzbub

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4264
  • I know you know I know
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2018, 01:55:50 PM »
What does the 97% consensus really mean?

As gebobs pointed out, a metastudy was done to review all the published literature on climate change, and the study showed that 97% of the published, peer-reviewed studies indicate that the earth is heating up and man is the cause.  I don't think that particular study addressed what the consequences will be.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) that just came out in November attempts to answer the question of impact and consequences.  You can see the table of contents and download the full PDF or a brief summary here: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/.  I encourage you to at least check out the table of contents to see what the report is about.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Online werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4841
  • mooh
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 2018, 08:02:58 AM »
SGU CAGW Rant

What does the 97% consensus really mean?

The 97% number was based on several studies that looked at the number of scientific papers that have been published in support of general AGW theory. I think the common misconception was that this was a poll of climatologists.

The studies in question are over a decade old now, btw. They were conducted during the Bush years. Not the best years to be a climate scientist either, of course, unless you happened to lean a certain contrarian way.
Mooohn!

Offline BTS

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • No Longer Participating
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2018, 08:42:08 AM »
One by product of global warming, beyond warmer temperatures, is more extreme weather. That means more severe hurricanes, longer more severe tornado seasons, more snowfall in some areas, more rain in some, longer and more severe droughts in other  places.

Nowhere have I seen a scientific report predicting fewer deaths from cold.

What we will see, and are already just starting to see,  is more deaths from extreme weather. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2015/05/cold-weather-more-lethal-than-hot-spells-says-study/

This study not only suggests that Cold causes more deaths than heat, but also that it is not extreme cold but moderately cold days that account for most of the deaths.  My suspicion is that moderately cold days are just far more frequent than extreme cold days to account for the data.

Your comment that you haven't seen data on cold deaths is precisely my point, there appears to be a bias to identifying and reporting harm and not investigating possible benefits (like enhanced plant growth with higher nutrient level in the air).

The data on severe weather is mixed at best.  I have seen graphs that show Accumulated Cyclone Energy over the past 50 years being basically the same.  The ocean levels have been rising for a long time at a pretty constant rate, with little apparent acceleration with recent warming.

Let's be clear that I don't consider this an aha, see I found a counter example so warming won't be bad.  Just a plea to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and not be so stone lock sure that we know the full impact and a positive economic response to the problem.


Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11340
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2018, 11:38:35 AM »
One by product of global warming, beyond warmer temperatures, is more extreme weather. That means more severe hurricanes, longer more severe tornado seasons, more snowfall in some areas, more rain in some, longer and more severe droughts in other  places.

Nowhere have I seen a scientific report predicting fewer deaths from cold.

What we will see, and are already just starting to see,  is more deaths from extreme weather. 


https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2015/05/cold-weather-more-lethal-than-hot-spells-says-study/

This study not only suggests that Cold causes more deaths than heat, but also that it is not extreme cold but moderately cold days that account for most of the deaths.  My suspicion is that moderately cold days are just far more frequent than extreme cold days to account for the data.

This study does not predict any effect of global warming on mortality. 

Quote

Your comment that you haven't seen data on cold deaths is precisely my point, there appears to be a bias to identifying and reporting harm and not investigating possible benefits (like enhanced plant growth with higher nutrient level in the air).

Sounds to me like you're claiming "Since they haven't reported this benefit they haven't studied it." The reality is that they have studied it and haven't found this benefit.
Quote

The data on severe weather is mixed at best.  I have seen graphs that show Accumulated Cyclone Energy over the past 50 years being basically the same.  The ocean levels have been rising for a long time at a pretty constant rate, with little apparent acceleration with recent warming.

Citation please. It's well documented that extreme weather events will increase in severity and frequency as a result of global warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

Quote
Let's be clear that I don't consider this an aha, see I found a counter example so warming won't be bad.  Just a plea to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and not be so stone lock sure that we know the full impact and a positive economic response to the problem.

I'll repeat what I've said numerous times. If anything, scientists and researchers are being overly conservative in their reports on the full effect of global warming. Including its impact on extreme weather.

In other words it's worse.

Not sure what you mean by a positive economic response to the problem. What's a positive economic response to a series of massive hurricanes in densely populated areas?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2018, 10:06:47 AM »
There will be winners and losers. In 100 million years, descendants of cockroaches will be looking back at this time trying to figure out just what happened just as we have with the KT boundary.

Online 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2018, 10:24:49 AM »
So >75% losers now, maybe some more winners in the distant future.

Offline mattand

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2018, 02:50:30 PM »
Let's be clear that I don't consider this an aha, see I found a counter example so warming won't be bad.  Just a plea to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and not be so stone lock sure that we know the full impact and a positive economic response to the problem.

Then stop writing like it. You'e really coming off like someone who wants to be a full on climate change denier; but is realizing that the evidence is stacked against you, and you're clawing at anything that'll bring you back into the fold.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 03:52:18 PM by mattand »

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2018, 11:24:44 AM »
The data on severe weather is mixed at best.  I have seen graphs that show Accumulated Cyclone Energy over the past 50 years being basically the same.  The ocean levels have been rising for a long time at a pretty constant rate, with little apparent acceleration with recent warming.

Citation please. It's well documented that extreme weather events will increase in severity and frequency as a result of global warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

“It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ or ‘Medieval Optimum,’ an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to ‘global’ warming is weaker than tenuous.”


— Richard A Muller. “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.” The New York Times (2012-07-28)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

“‘It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic,’ he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. ‘Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller "Physics for Future Presidents" I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth." But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.’”

— Tom Zeller Jr. “Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism.” Huffington Post (2011-11-03)
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/its-science-not-skepticis_n_1072419.html

From 26:32 to 29:50
• Richard A Muller. “Climate Change and Energy: Important Recent Developments.” [“Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty.”] The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) (2010-10-01) [52 min]
https://youtu.be/VbR0EPWgkEI?t=1592


• Richard A Muller (interviewee), Gref Dalton (interviewer, founder of Climate One). “Richard Muller at Climate One.” Climate One (Commonwealth Club, San Francisco CA; 2012-06-21) [60 min]
https://youtu.be/DOfsSYsvQnI?t=0


Recent fields of research and publications:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/MullerVita-03-05.htm
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/RichPubs.htm
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 11:31:08 AM by Isranner »

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2018, 11:54:17 AM »
Hey isranner, how about some original content? I might be more interested in your take than in Muller's. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11340
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2018, 01:35:15 PM »
Hey isranner, how about some original content? I might be more interested in your take than in Muller's. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Hey, Isranner, that was a great post. Thanks.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline gebobs

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • Me like hockey!
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2018, 01:38:48 PM »
Hey isranner, how about some original content? I might be more interested in your take than in Muller's. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Hey, Isranner, that was a great post. Thanks.

I take it you object to my asking him for his thoughts rather than the regurgipost that all his posts seem to be so far.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 01:44:22 PM by gebobs »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11340
Re: Episode #699
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2018, 02:25:01 PM »
Hey isranner, how about some original content? I might be more interested in your take than in Muller's. Which, frankly, isn't saying much.

Hey, Isranner, that was a great post. Thanks.

I take it you object to my asking him for his thoughts rather than the regurgipost that all his posts seem to be so far.

Nothing wrong with posting links to content. (Although I make no comment on the content itself).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

 

personate-rain
personate-rain