"Scientific American says ..." Topic

to Chill Out.

link

Love the title, "Should We Chill Out About Global Warming".

True scientists might be able to turn on a dime, when the information is solid.

But the doom junkies and those in the public looking to undermine national governments in favor of a global one aren't going to like this. Who knows? They might be the ones who find themselves being the deniers one day. :)

Dan

Amen.

A few years back I ran across an old issue of Analog that had a fascinating article about the very issue of scientific scare-mongering. It was dealing with the assumed "fossil fuel" crisis of the mid '70s, but was pointing out that merely a few decades before the big crisis was the world supply of…arsenic. Yes, arsenic. What, you didn't know it was scarce? You didn't know it was an inevitable crisis that would Doom Us All? Well, it once was. What happened? As the article pointed out, technological development happened. Within a few years of the impending crisis, the world no longer actually needed that much arsenic (on top of which, more was found), as the technology dependent on it had been improved or simply rendered obsolete.
Crisis tend to coincide with change that alleviate the crisis. Indeed the current crisis probably wouldn't even exist if we hadn't freaked out over nuclear power back in the '80s, and instead built more nuclear plants (which don't emit carbon of any kind).
So, yes, everyone should chill out. We can handle the crisis without radical measures or ranting protests. My prediction? Within a few decades, we'll wonder what the fuss was all about. But then, someone will be fussing over something else.

Ah, but plenty of species have gone extinct because that "change" didn't come around in time. I'll be quite happy if we are wondering what the fuss was about. I'll be even happier if that change comes *from* that fuss, because anticipation is the best way to be prepared.

Maybe, but the Climate Changers/Global Warmers want to drive their view onto everyone and probably would be okay with putting anyone who disagree with them into.

Re-Education Camps

But they do keep on trying to shock everyone with articles like this one.

link

That is not going to happen over the next 82 years. Just like the Ice Caps haven't melted away as Al Gore said they would.

They state things like:

Bomb Cyclone
Super Storm
Polar Vortex

All in attempt to shock everyone who don't have no clue on what has happen in the past and what will happen in the future.

We are heading into another Solar Minimum period and who knows what will happen.

But here is something from one that happened in the past.

link

One thing is for certain…

Those Computer models that are being use will more than likely be wrong.

Sigh.

Did anyone read the article?

It was about two ecoeconomists who wrote about dealing with climate change if no one changes fossil fuel use etc.

Mithmee

Polar vortex?

There was some medium a few years who claimed to see tons of them vortex things in someone's house. :)

Dan

Well, I did read the article and it is a bit… strange. Basically it says that yes, climate change is happening and it will have some very bad effects. But put your trust in new technological advances to get us through. I do agree that technology is our best hope, but to just ASSUME it will find us a way out of the current mess (which the article does acknowledge exists)and that we don't need to worry seems irresponsible. And then there is this:

"How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn't a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards."

How am I supposed to interpret that? Cataclysmic, but not apocalyptic? Merriam-Webster defines Cataclysm as:

1: flood, deluge
2: catastrophe
3: a momentous and violent event marked by overwhelming upheaval and demolition; broadly : an event that brings great changes an international economic cataclysm

Is this some sort of 'any climate change which doesn't kill us (as a species) only makes us stronger' sort of thing?

Not very comforting I'm afraid.

So I guess worst case it's cataclysmic for beachfront properties, though they'll certainly claim it was post-Apocalyptic. :)

Same could be said for people who choose to live near active volcanoes or areas with regular seismic activity. The localized disaster might be catastrophic, but civilization goes on. It's not Apocalyptic or end of the world stuff as some people like to sell it.

Dan
PS. I imagine there must have been similar claims back when the Ice Age was coming to an end and the seas finally began to rise again. It was catastrophic for the Doggerlanders and the Sundalanders and I'm sure they wanted the water to stay right where it was. :)
TMP link

Maybe, but the Climate Changers/Global Warmers want to drive their view onto everyone and probably would be okay with putting anyone who disagree with them into.

Re-Education Camps

Add persecution complex to the already run amok conspiracism.

Just like the Ice Caps haven't melted away as Al Gore said they would.

Only in Mithmee-land. You've had this explained to you many times. Just like "proxy data" and "the climate has always changed" and "there's heavy snowfall in Erie, PA" and "why didn't the climate models predict a nice warm Sunday afternoon in Vancouver eight years ago?".

They state things like:

Bomb Cyclone

Which is a real meteorological term in use for 50-60 years. Nice straw man argument.

Did anyone read the article?

Why let reading comprehension get in the way of expressing one's confirmation bias? Anyone who followed the article (hardly an indictment against AGW, by the way) all the way through would have found this handy link to another article detailing facts vs opinions.

link

Love the title, "Should We Chill Out About Global Warming".

True scientists might be able to turn on a dime, when the information is solid.

Sorry Dan, but this is a good example on what I mentioned above. First, these are not scientists, rather economists. That's not to belittle their work and opinions, but this hardly invokes a characterization of "true scientists". Also what makes the "information" solid? And finally, you love the title, as if it makes a definitive statement. But it's actually framed as a question. You forgot the ? mark.

I didn't, and it immediately brought Betteridge's Law to mind. But that's just my sense of humour.

link

This may be of interest to some also. A Sci-Am interview with "Merchants of Doubt" author, Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes. She deals with issues brought up in this thread.

link

Only in Mithmee-land. You've had this explained to you many times.

I can post the video again of him stating it in his own words.

You just don't want to acknowledge that he stated it.

It was also a big component of his Documentary.

He made millions off of pushing this view.

Oh and he has a carbon footprint bigger than all of us here.

Lol. I just realized that, if mankind somehow reverses the melting of the ice and returns us to the Ice Age, then Canadians (and Northern Europeans) are either going to have to live in domed cities deep under the ice, or will have to move south!

Dan

Lol. I just realized that, if mankind somehow reverses the melting of the ice and returns us to the Ice Age, then Canadians (and Northern Europeans) are either going to have to live in domed cities deep under the ice, or will have to move south!

Dan

Of all the things to be worried about, this is pretty low on the list.

But the Ice Caps are melting away. Apologies that they haven't kept to the schedule.

I can post the video again of him stating it in his own words.

You just don't want to acknowledge that he stated it.

Go for it. But I'll take Snope's take on it, thanks. That's a more balanced view of Gore's comments, both good and bad. It's not as black and white as you pretend and this has been explained to you already. Just like everything else in my list.

link

He made millions off of pushing this view.

Oh and he has a carbon footprint bigger than all of us here.

Non sequitur. As altfritz says, the polar ice caps are still melting. Gore's comments notwithstanding.

I just realized that, if mankind somehow reverses the melting of the ice and returns us to the Ice Age……….

Dan, you have to quit watching bad movies like The Colony and Geostorm.

I can post the video again of him stating it in his own words.

And get shot down in flames just like before. Sorry, Mithmee, you're going to have to do better than that.

Here all along I thought it was a science to question ideas and religion that condemned unbelievers.

I think that what the authors the OP in his link were saying was that some unease is justified, but not panic.
Panic, like in the movies that have the Gulf Stream shutting down, and Dad can't pick the kids up for the weekend because of all the blizzards brought on by Global Nuclear Cooling Warming.
Wasn't there a movie where the heroes had to outrace glaciers on foot?

I'm not a denier. More like a skeptic who has seen this play before. But I accept the possibility of real danger. But I'll be dead then.
I don't find the confidence that the authors have that "we will come up with something that will not make things all that dire" all that reassuring. Betting on undiscovered technology to fix things does not seem to me all that rational.

Here all along I thought it was a science to question ideas and religion that condemned unbelievers.

Sure, always have and always will. Read the comments section of any posted paper and you're see a vibrant back-and-forth on any subject.

Problem with YOUR side is that you never bring anything concrete to the table to question. Do that and you may get taken seriously. Until then, you're so much white noise….

First, these are not scientists, rather economists.

Sorry, Bowman, have to take exception to this. Both are ecomodernists (not economists). Pinker is a psychologist by training and Boisvert is a journalist. And though my august profession does have its looney tunes, it happily doesn't count these two within it (Thankfully!!!).

Sorry, its you deniers who believe in spite of evidence to the contrary

What Evidence?

Computer Models design to show that it is happening.

The Global Warmers had to jump off the Global Warming ship because what they were saying was not happening.

So they decided to just call it Climate Change and if something happens that is bad then it was Climate Change that caused it.

Hurricane hits the coast of Texas – Climate Change. Even though the coast of Texas has been hit by worst Hurricanes before.

New York area gets hit by a Hurricane – Climate Change again and lets call that Hurricane a "Super Storm" because that will scare more individuals. Wanna bet that area has been subject to other Hurricanes in the past.

You have basically focused on what is a very, very short period of time (around 50-150 years).

You don't even know what should be the normal Weather/Climate since we could still be recovering from the last mini Ice Age and haven't gotten back to what should be normal.

You disregard the impacts of what Volcanos can cause on both the Weather/Climate, because that cannot be blamed on Humans/Man.

You believe in what the Global Warmers/Climate Changes have been preaching even though nothing that they have preach about has happen.

So call me a denier if you want, but that is not going to change the fact that our coastal cities are not going to be underwater by 2100.

Oh and you don't believe that if we get smacked by another sizeable Comet/Meteor that it will not cause another Mini/Major Ice Age.

But we are moving through space as is everything else it is only a matter of time before we do get smacked again.

YouTube link

link

link

This was from the Pacific Coast area in Washington State from around 6 days ago.

Hurricane hits the coast of Texas – Climate Change….

New York area gets hit by a Hurricane – Climate Change again

Wrong again (you're batting 1.000 there). No serious meteorologist argue that there is a direct link, per se. And the reason is simple: Hurricanes are WEATHER events. Once again, you've conflated weather and climate…

Lol. I think the ones who keep blaming every weather event in "climate change" are the ones who can't tell the two apart. Specially when they want the public to panic.

Dan

+1 Winston Smith

Oh and you don't believe that if we get smacked by another sizeable Comet/Meteor that it will not cause another Mini/Major Ice Age.

Again, you've had this explained to you. There is a poor correlation between comet strikes and all glaciations. Remember the links you provided before? The last major comet that caused measurable cooling hit about 12,000 years ago (give or take). However, by that time the last Ice Age was already in it's warming phase. You are the one over emphasizing comets and neglecting measurable constituents such as Milankovitch Cycles. Which was also explained to you. Remember my analogy with heavy metal poisoning of late imperial Romans and the decline of the Late Empire?

But I accept the possibility of real danger. But I'll be dead then. grin

Great attitude. Let someone else worry about it.

I don't find the confidence that the authors have that "we will come up with something that will not make things all that dire" all that reassuring. Betting on undiscovered technology to fix things does not seem to me all that rational.

Glad to agree with you there.

Sorry, Bowman, have to take exception to this

Oops, mea culpa. Consider me chastised. Especially as Pinker is a good Canadian boy.

Lol. I think the ones who keep blaming every weather event in "climate change" are the ones who can't tell the two apart.

Sorry Dan, that's incorrect. According to Mithmee, bigger hurricanes have hit Texas before. Sure but that's like saying the Earth was warmer before. Meaningless. What is increasing is the number of storms, their overall severity and the amount of moisture they carry. While Irma was the biggest storm of 2017, most of it's fury was spent away from the US. If not it may have been more devastating than Katrina.

Hurricane Harvey was a much smaller storm, however it dumped 3 times as much rain as storms from a previous century. There may be many reasons for this, but the best current theory is global warming.

"Before the storm, climate scientists speculated global warming could intensify climate change. They pointed to a warmer atmosphere, which carries more water vapor to worsen rainstorms, as well as to higher ocean surface temperatures, which intensify hurricanes.

Hurricane Harvey's record rainfall was three times more likely than a storm from the early 1900s and 15 percent more intense as a result of climate change, a new study in Environmental Research Letters found."

Above from a Sci-Am article:

link

@Dave B

Good to see if one is bereft of a salient or meaningful comment, one can always resort to a group ad hominem insult.

I'll leave you with some wisdom that may come in handy.

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted"

Emerson

And for the record, I don't believe VCarter should be doghoused. He was not making a religious comment, but making an analogy to orthodox thinking. It was not an attack on anyone's beliefs. Please reconsider.

Bowman: "Sorry Dan, that's incorrect. According to Mithmee, bigger hurricanes have hit Texas before. Sure but that's like saying the Earth was warmer before. Meaningless. What is increasing is the number of storms, their overall severity and the amount of moisture they carry. While Irma was the biggest storm of 2017, most of it's fury was spent away from the US. If not it may have been more devastating than Katrina."

Lol. So is Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever it's called these days, directing these hurricanes in such a way that they affect the more populated areas and create more costly damage? :)

Dan
PS. As for VCarter getting DHd for what he said, that's just plain ridiculous. There was nothing religious about it. I seriously doubt any Catholics were harmed in the making of that comment. And I don't have to be a Caliph, an Imam, Ayatollah, the Pope, the Dalai Lama or Voodoo priest to see that.

I also think VCarter was saying that in jest. And since No Harm No Foul, parole him early.

Lol. So is Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever it's called these day…….

Actually, according to the quote above, the climate scientists distinguish between the two. Conflating the two is wrong.

……directing these hurricanes in such a way that they affect the more populated areas and create more costly damage? :)

Where do you get these ideas? Had Irma crashed into the continental US at full power the damage may have been greater than Katrina. Luckily it spent most of its fury in the Atlantic and Caribbean islands before striking Florida. By then it wasn't a level 5 hurricane. But the damage to Florida was still extensive.

I'm pleased to be in agreement with you and Dave about VCarter. Absolutely parole him. I think the editors should look back at their rules and perhaps understand how they didn't apply in this case. And while I'm complaining, I'd like to know what rule was broken to have my March 13, 5:21 pm deleted. Things are starting to get rather arbitrary around here.

@ bowman – A comment on the weather is an attack on you?

No, I'm referring to your "snowflake" meme. You are implying that those of us that disagree with you are "flakes". If that's the extent of your contributions to a Science board, then don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it.

As for your comment on the weather, I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

Wrong again (you're batting 1.000 there). No serious meteorologist argue that there is a direct link, per se. And the reason is simple: Hurricanes are WEATHER events. Once again, you've conflated weather and climate…

Long term Weather is Climate so weather is climate.

If Climate is not weather than what is it?

Here is something at the kid level.

link

Climate is the average weather in a place over many years. While the weather can change in just a few hours, climate takes hundreds, thousands, even millions of years to change.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

So Weather has everything to do with what the Climate is.

Oh and I never mentioned anything about meteorologists saying anything.

But if I wanted I could post quite a few links on individuals claiming that the major fires, the above hurricanes and several other things are all due to Climate Changes.

So you are right I am batting 1000 since what I stated is true.

What is increasing is the number of storms, their overall severity and the amount of moisture they carry

Well you might thing that but you would be wrong.

link

The number of Storms haven't been increasing and they haven't been getting stronger either.

Oh and you will have to go back 20 years for a really deadly Storm.

link

But go on believing what you will.

Oh and Sandy wasn't even close to being a "Super Storm", and those Fires down in California and here in Washington are not due to Climate Change.

Sorry, I give the global warming/climate change hysteria the respect it deserves. Because it isn't science.

In fact, I think we need an "Unproven Hypothesis Board" specifically for these discussions. Maybe we should have a Poll on it?

The number of Storms haven't been increasing and they haven't been getting stronger either.

Not according to the people who study them.

link

Sorry, I give the global warming/climate change hysteria the respect it deserves. Because it isn't science.

Well it seems that the teaching of evolution causes a bit of hysteria in your country too. So I guess Biology isn't science either. Thanks for explaining it to me.

I think we need an "Unproven Hypothesis Board"

I guess you would at that. First, hypotheses and theories are not "proven". Proofs are found in Math. Theories are supported by the evidence and observations. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising at levels never seen or measured before. AGW is the current best model to explain these observations. If you have a better one, bring it on. That is how science is done.

Bowman,

That above link is totally and completely bias.

Plus even that Wiki link only goes back to 1850 so has nothing on the storms prior to that.

But we do know that there were Hurricanes prior to 1850.

Now to strongest/most intense hurricanes.

link

link

link

Well now if they have been increasing in intensity shouldn't they have more on the above lists.

Really only one on the list and it was just a Cat 3 Hurricane when it hit the United States.

We have only seen three Cat 5 Hurricanes hit the United States.

link

The Labor Day Storm – 1935
Hurricane Camille – 1969
Hurricane Andrew – 1992

Gee if the way you are talking we should be having 3-5 Cat 5 Hurricanes slamming into the States every year.

But we go for years without even seeing a Hurricane hit the United States, Katrina hit is 2005 and the next Hurricane to hit wasn't into 2012.

Gee you would think if there were more we would be getting slam every year by several Hurricanes.

So why aren't we?

I think the weather geeks just came out with the new estimated number of storms they think will form during next hurricane season.

Lol. I'm still waiting for them to get one of these "next season" predictions right, for a change. I might get better results with my dice, or perhaps a crystal ball or some Voodoo chicken bones.

I'b be happy if they could finally predict correctly one or two weeks ahead.

Dan

One more day until VCarter is finally out.

I still can't believe someone actually thinks it was an attack on religion or something like it. Like I said earlier, I seriously doubt that any Christians/Catholics were harmed in the making of that statement.

Dan

RUSH LIMBAUGH (HOST): If there are questions we can ask to which we will never have the answers, then that gives me confidence that there is more than just life on Earth. What is the point of creating beings who can ponder such places if they don't exist? Certainly the Big Bang. Again, I'll admit I'm just a college dropout radio guy, okay? I'm not a professional physicist. I'm not a professional scientist. I do not own a lab coat, white or light blue. So they tell me that the Big Bang is where everything began. Hawking says it's the Big Bang and we're still expanding.

[…]

Okay, the Big Bang. There was this whatever-size — call it a golf ball-, tennis ball-size of matter that banged and we're all here. Where was it? Where was this glob of matter that banged that created the universe? Where was it? No, no, no. You can't say, "It was in the void." You can't say it was in another dimension, parallel or otherwise, astral plane. It had to be somewhere. Where was it? What was around it? Could you see it? Could somebody see this golf-ball-size bit of energy if they were not part of that? Could you be somewhere and see it? Could you be somewhere and witness this Big Bang instead of being a part of it? If so, where were you? Well, since nobody could see it, how the hell do they know it really happened? But I'm not supposed to ask that.

So did I find Mithmee's teacher?

I dunno, Martin.

But I'm sure there must be a lot of paranoid people locked up in mental hospitals who are also diehard Global Warming and Climate Change believers, perhaps to the point of being fanatics. They might even use the exact same references you guys use!

Would that mean that all the other believers, including yourself, are linked to the locked up crazies in some way? Is that the type logic you are using with your comment on Limbaugh being Mithmee's teacher?

Dan

I don't listen to Rush.

Plus if you want to find my teachers you are going to have to travel back in time to the 1960's/1970's.

Plus I believe most of them are now dead, though there a few still alive.

Like Caribe has stated you have individuals/groups saying something is going to happen and what they say is going to happen doesn't.

I only stating what is not going to happen and put out things that have happen.