UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

by **Dukasaur** on Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:20 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's point predictions, and then there's pattern predictions. Pattern predictions are what matter, so don't let the emphasis on selective data points sway you (in favor of or against climate change evidence).

I wasn't citing it as evidence, really. More like colour commentary.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:10 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:There's point predictions, and then there's pattern predictions. Pattern predictions are what matter, so don't let the emphasis on selective data points sway you (in favor of or against climate change evidence).

I wasn't citing it as evidence, really. More like colour commentary.

Oh okay. Let's change 'you' to the 'general you'.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:03 am

So it is established that 95% of all recent climate change predictions by the 95% of these scientists ranged from overblown to wildly overblown?

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:05 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
demonfork wrote:I wonder how much of a delta there needs to be between computer simulated predictions and actual recorded data before the climate alarmists start to cut their losses?

It's starting to become absurd...

How 'bout from years 1960 or so to 2013?

how 'bout from the last 30 million years?

by **Dukasaur** on Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:25 am

Phatscotty wrote:So it is established that 95% of all recent climate change predictions by the 95% of these scientists ranged from overblown to wildly overblown?

Show where this has been "established"?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:27 am

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
demonfork wrote:I wonder how much of a delta there needs to be between computer simulated predictions and actual recorded data before the climate alarmists start to cut their losses?

It's starting to become absurd...

How 'bout from years 1960 or so to 2013?

how 'bout from the last 30 million years?

Sounds ideal, but do they have the data? If not, then <shrugs>.

by **mrswdk** on Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:35 pm

So my housemate just got back from Austin, TX and says it's 0 C there right now.

by **AndyDufresne** on Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:11 pm

mrswdk wrote:So my housemate just got back from Austin, TX and says it's 0 C there right now.

This sounds like a sign of the end of times.

--Andy

by **tzor** on Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:17 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:What rubbish.

I'm pretty sure it isn't "rubbish" but Rex Warner does make an argument against me.

The question is often asked why it was that the Greeks, who had invented so rapidly so many of the basic principles of science, never went further with their application. Important discoveries, certainly, were made in astronomy, mechanics and medicine; but, on the whole, the tendency is towards theory and speculation and away from experiment and observation. In the end the magnificently constructed system of Aristotle, invested with the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, becomes a positive impediment not only to science but even to the "inquiry" with which the whole process began.

The usual answer to this question is that the Greeks had "an aristocratic culture"; they would not soil their hands in a laboratory; they thought experiment an occupation only fitted for slaves. I do not believe that this answer is correct. Among many arguments against it one may adduce the activities of the extremely "aristocratic" Empedocles. Aristophanes, certainly, makes fun of the whole idea of scientific experiment. He was pleasing an audience who liked to hear jokes about what we too, before our scientists became so powerful, liked to think of as "the absent-minded professor". It is the same attitude as that which we find in Swift's "Voyage to Laputa," and it derives from the belief not that science is "slavish," but that it is unimportant when compared with other activities.

In particular it seemed to the citizens of the new democracies of the fifth century much less important than politics. An Athenian, with his energy and intellectual curiosity, was eager indeed to explain the world and also to change it. But explanation was the work of philosophy, change of politics. And so the abstract principles, when they were "applied" at all, were applied not to the development of science but to the technique of living successfully in a political society.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:24 pm

tzor wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:What rubbish.

I'm pretty sure it isn't "rubbish" but Rex Warner does make an argument against me.

The question is often asked why it was that the Greeks, who had invented so rapidly so many of the basic principles of science, never went further with their application. Important discoveries, certainly, were made in astronomy, mechanics and medicine; but, on the whole, the tendency is towards theory and speculation and away from experiment and observation. In the end the magnificently constructed system of Aristotle, invested with the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, becomes a positive impediment not only to science but even to the "inquiry" with which the whole process began.

The usual answer to this question is that the Greeks had "an aristocratic culture"; they would not soil their hands in a laboratory; they thought experiment an occupation only fitted for slaves. I do not believe that this answer is correct. Among many arguments against it one may adduce the activities of the extremely "aristocratic" Empedocles. Aristophanes, certainly, makes fun of the whole idea of scientific experiment. He was pleasing an audience who liked to hear jokes about what we too, before our scientists became so powerful, liked to think of as "the absent-minded professor". It is the same attitude as that which we find in Swift's "Voyage to Laputa," and it derives from the belief not that science is "slavish," but that it is unimportant when compared with other activities.

In particular it seemed to the citizens of the new democracies of the fifth century much less important than politics. An Athenian, with his energy and intellectual curiosity, was eager indeed to explain the world and also to change it. But explanation was the work of philosophy, change of politics. And so the abstract principles, when they were "applied" at all, were applied not to the development of science but to the technique of living successfully in a political society.

Checked the previous few pages and didn't find the context. What's the context?

by **Jmac1026** on Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:55 pm

mrswdk wrote:So my housemate just got back from Austin, TX and says it's 0 C there right now.

He just disproved climate change.

by **mrswdk** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:13 am

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN had warned.

Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.

This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.

Michael Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance".

"Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.

by **mrswdk** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:59 pm

So the UN predicts total environmental calamity and no one cares?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:32 pm

News articles diverge much from the scientific conclusions. And, where's the numbers? Where's the actual cost calculation? The quote is as convincing as UC talking about the end of the world.

Also, where's the cost-BENEFIT analysis? That seems important before you freak out about something. "YOU'RE GONNA LOSE $30k per year!!1! (But you're getting a better job for $50k per year)."

by **mrswdk** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:54 pm

25% decrease in global crop output by 2050 is the only figure I can remember off the top of my head.

by **Dukasaur** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:02 pm

mrswdk wrote:So the UN predicts total environmental calamity and no one cares?

Calamity is a relative term. If some cesspool of crime and corruption like Miami disappears below the waves, will anyone care, other than the drug lords and their DEA symbiotes?

A time of great and frightening changes is coming; that is clear. Is it more frightening than life in general? Is climate change a bigger threat to humanity than nuclear war, jihad, potential financial meltdown, Ebola, remote-control dictatorship by the U.S. "intelligence" community, the potential rise of self-aware machines that don't need us any more, collision with an asteroid, a gamma pulse hit from a nearby supernova, or rap "music"? I'm not so sure.

The doomsayers seem to spend too much time looking at the negative impacts of climate change, and very little looking at the positive. Existing fertile regions may dry out and become infertile. On the other hand, millions of acres of arable land may be born in areas of Canada and Siberia. Personally, I think climate change is a magnificent opportunity. I think land on the north shore of Lake Huron, that right now is useless taiga and can be had for three bucks an acre, might one day be prime real estate.

Sure, while people on the north shore of Lake Huron may get richer, people on the Lower Mississippi may get poorer. How is this a calamity? Why do people think that their good fortune should be carried forward in perpetuity? Why shouldn't people stuck in Canada or Siberia enjoy some nice weather for a change, while people in Brisbane or Buenos Aires who had it all until now get some misery?

by **mrswdk** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:30 pm

Dukasaur wrote:The doomsayers seem to spend too much time looking at the negative impacts of climate change, and very little looking at the positive. Existing fertile regions may dry out and become infertile. On the other hand, millions of acres of arable land may be born in areas of Canada and Siberia.

The report takes that into account. The drop in crop output is 25% because the development of newly arable areas will not compensate for the loss of previously arable areas.

by **Metsfanmax** on Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:36 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:News articles diverge much from the scientific conclusions. And, where's the numbers? Where's the actual cost calculation? The quote is as convincing as UC talking about the end of the world.

Also, where's the cost-BENEFIT analysis? That seems important before you freak out about something. "YOU'RE GONNA LOSE $30k per year!!1! (But you're getting a better job for $50k per year)."

There's few instances where there's a meaningful cost-benefit analysis to be had on the global scale, because the costs dominate the benefits, or there aren't any benefits. There's little to be gained from sea level rise destroying a coastal city. There are a few examples of situations where there's potential positive impacts from climate changes, but these are clearly outweighed by the negative impacts. I'll give some examples from the IPCC report:

"Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat andmaize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. See Figure SPM.2C. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence)."

"Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). Examples include greater likelihood of injury, disease, and death due to more intense heat waves and fires (very high confidence); increased likelihood of under-nutrition resulting from diminished food production in poor regions (high confidence); risks from lost work capacity and reduced labor productivity in vulnerable populations; and increased risks from food- and water-borne diseases (very high confidence) and vector-borne diseases (medium confidence). Positive effects are expected to include modest reductions in cold-related mortality and morbidity in some areas due to fewer cold extremes (low confidence), geographical shifts in food production (medium confidence), and reduced capacity of vectors to transmit some diseases. But globally over the 21st century, the magnitude and severity of negative impacts are projected to increasingly outweigh positive impacts (high confidence). The most effective vulnerability reduction measures for health in the near-term are programs that implement and improve basic public health measures such as provision of clean water and sanitation, secure essential health care including vaccination and child health services, increase capacity for disaster preparedness and response, and alleviate poverty (very high confidence). By 2100 for the high-emission scenario RCP8.5, the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors (high confidence)."

"Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). Climate-change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries. In urban and rural areas, wage-labor-dependent poor households that are net buyers of food are expected to be particularly affected due to food price increases, including in regions with high food insecurity and high inequality (particularly in Africa), although the agricultural self-employed could benefit. Insurance programs, social protection measures, and disaster risk management may enhance long-term livelihood resilience among poor and marginalized people, if policies address poverty and multidimensional inequalities."

That all being said, there's plenty of research on whether climate change will benefit particular countries, but there's a lot of uncertainty in those estimates at present.

by **Dukasaur** on Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:12 am

mrswdk wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:The doomsayers seem to spend too much time looking at the negative impacts of climate change, and very little looking at the positive. Existing fertile regions may dry out and become infertile. On the other hand, millions of acres of arable land may be born in areas of Canada and Siberia.

The report takes that into account. The drop in crop output is 25% because the development of newly arable areas will not compensate for the loss of previously arable areas.

I'll admit that I haven't done any close statistical studies. The quick looks I've had at some of the research, however, tells me it's wildly pessimistic. The research typically assumes that people will continue attempting to grow what they are growing now, and that their yields will go down. No shit. If conditions change, and you continue doing things the same way, you will probably see poor results. I think people are smarter than that -- if current yields cannot be sustained in a new local climate, they will switch to crops more suited to the new circumstances.

Overall, a quick and intuitive look tells you a few things.

There are vast lands in Canada and Siberia that are currently useless for agriculture, millions of acres of which may become arable.
Most forecasts show a vast increase in desert, and yet normally the world's hottest areas are not desert but rain forest. Is someone cooking the books a little? So far the hotter temperatures have led to more precipitation (as one might imagine -- warmer air carries more moisture and carries it further inland) so why do the forecasts show so much dry land?
Most currently temperate regions produce one crop per year, while most tropical regions produce two or sometimes three or four crops per year. Many areas close to the border of the tropics should be able to re-align to tropical agriculture patterns as the weather gets warmer.
The predictions also include a reduction in the productivity of fishing. However, current fisheries exploitation is already unsustainable, and with or without climate change will eventually crash, so the climate change becomes more-or-less irrelevant.
Agricultural science has been growing by leaps and bounds in our lifetime. In many cases, we already have more science than we need to exploit a new set of circumstances, so the adjustments required may be almost painless.