Climate Science Is Not Settled

[dphantom]

One of the most well balanced articles I have read on the climate science debate. Views that closely approximate my own.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself."

Indeed, failing to recognize what we do not know is a great disservice to our exploration into a very complex topic.

 

[fskimospy]

His uncertainty is ridiculous. He is basically arguing that because the damage could be anywhere from really bad to utterly catastrophic that we should not act. There is no non-terrible band in his uncertainty. Therefore the way forward is clear.

This is simply another step in the steady retreat of climate denialists. In and of itself this is a good step forward though.

 

[senseamp]

What am I supposed to do with this article? Not be as energy efficient as I would have been before reading it? Burn more gas for fun, so I can help people like Saudi Wahhabists, Putin and the Kochs make more money?

 

[Paul98]

There are things that are settled, but like the rest of science it's not all settled. But as is said in the article the fact that humans are having a major effect on current climate change IS settled science.

Then for things like this

Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.

It has already been explained both why there is a slowdown in air temperature, and that the models don't really fail to capture the slowing. 3 Main factors for slowdown being change in ocean cycle which causes cooling of air temperatures, lower solar activity, and lack of good temperature records for certain areas which other data shows large warming trend.

Then the models "failing" to capture this slowdown comes from the models not even trying to model the short term ocean cycle changes. These changes cause ether warming or cooling, but in the long term even out. So during the cooling phase you have the models over forecasting temperature, then during the warming phase they under forecast temperature. But in the long run it even's out so they don't care when these things happen.

Though I do agree with a lot of what is said here. Most of those that deny global warming don't make a reasonable argument. Instead they use debunked or plainly misleading arguments. Such as it being cold outside so global warming doesn't exist. That arctic sea ice grew since 2012 to try and disprove global warming.

It's trying to debate the parts of the science that are settled that is the problem. Trying to deny that humans have an impact on global climate is a problem.

 

[norseamd]

"Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself." Indeed, failing to recognize what we do not know is a great disservice to our exploration into a very complex topic.

Yep. That does not mean that the climate is not changing.

 

[dphantom]

What am I supposed to do with this article? Not be as energy efficient as I would have been before reading it? Burn more gas for fun, so I can help people like Saudi Wahhabists, Putin and the Kochs make more money?

Why would you not want to be energy efficient? That is in your best economic interest. I burn a lot of gas for fun, hundreds of gallons per year between my boat and pleasure drives.

Oh, and don't forget Soros. Wouldn't want him left out.

 

[dphantom]

Yep. That does not mean that the climate is not changing.

correct, climate has been changing for ever. What we need to understand is how much climate is changed by man's influence and how much is natural variation.

I am of the opinion based on all current research that man's influence is small but not insignificant compared to natural variation.

 

[Paul98]

correct, climate has been changing for ever. What we need to understand is how much climate is changed by man's influence and how much is natural variation.

I am of the opinion based on all current research that man's influence is small but not insignificant compared to natural variation.

Would you like to explain why temperature has been rising even with the change in ocean cycle and low solar activity?

 

[Jaskalas]

What am I supposed to do with this article? Not be as energy efficient as I would have been before reading it? Burn more gas for fun, so I can help people like Saudi Wahhabists, Putin and the Kochs make more money?

Don't use the EPA to attack coal plants and force them to shut down before they are ready. If we have another extreme winter the the power grid may fail, and lives lost. We need the grid to be stable, not marching to the drum beat of bureaucrats in Washington who are pushing an agenda.

Don't force our vehicles to become unsafe lightweight pieces of !@#$ just to appease a mandated fuel economy.

 

[norseamd]

Don't use the EPA to attack coal plants and force them to shut down before they are ready. If we have another extreme winter the the power grid may fail, and lives lost. We need the grid to be stable, not marching to the drum beat of bureaucrats in Washington who are pushing an agenda. Don't force our vehicles to become unsafe lightweight pieces of !@#$ just to appease a mandated fuel economy.

If we fuck up the climate too much millions will die.

 

[senseamp]

Don't use the EPA to attack coal plants and force them to shut down before they are ready. If we have another extreme winter the the power grid may fail, and lives lost. We need the grid to be stable, not marching to the drum beat of bureaucrats in Washington who are pushing an agenda.

Coal is dirty even aside from CO2, and it is killing miners with black lung. Fortunately, cheap natural gas is killing it.

Don't force our vehicles to become unsafe lightweight pieces of !@#$ just to appease a mandated fuel economy.

Yeah, that Tesla Model S is such an unsafe lightweight piece of sh!t...
And safety has gotten so much worse since we abandoned the SUV craze of the 90s. I so wish there were more heavy SUVs with high center of mass and poor handling and braking around to hit me.

 

[norseamd]

Coal is one of the largest artificial producers of radioactive waste in the world and even China is shutting down their coal industry.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes coal is dirty, but you don't have to push the transition and risk the grid.

Nor should you crash into anything with your lightweight crumple car. Calling them safe is ridiculous.

 

[Jaskalas]

If we fuck up the climate too much millions will die.

Why stop there? There's at least one person on here fearing an E.L.E. and citing 250 million years ago.

 

[senseamp]

Yes coal is dirty, but you don't have to push the transition and risk the grid.
Nor should you crash into anything with your lightweight crumple car. Calling them safe is ridiculous.

If you are so concerned about your safety, you should be happy more people are driving lighter cars.

 

[norseamd]

Why stop there? There's at least one person on here fearing an E.L.E. and citing 250 million years ago.

You obviously do not read any science material.

 

[dphantom]

Would you like to explain why temperature has been rising even with the change in ocean cycle and low solar activity?

Over what time period

 

[dphantom]

If you are so concerned about your safety, you should be happy more people are driving lighter cars.

from one point of view I am. I drive a large pickup and with the number of small car drivers texting all around me I feel much safer.

 

[senseamp]

from one point of view I am. I drive a large pickup and with the number of small car drivers texting all around me I feel much safer.

Good. I also feel much safer with more small cars around my small car. Good news all around.

 

[norseamd]

Over what time period

What you actually need to look is the CO2 level data throughout world history.

 

[Moonbeam]

I saw a white feather floating in the air so I know now that climate change is bunk. And if any of you fuckers think a white feather doesn't disprove global warming you can shove it up your ass. The truth is obvious to those of us who have defective brains. I just wish you wouldn't accuse me of taking you over a cliff and destroying the future of our children. Liberals don't know anything about family values.

 

[Greenman]

His uncertainty is ridiculous. He is basically arguing that because the damage could be anywhere from really bad to utterly catastrophic that we should not act. There is no non-terrible band in his uncertainty. Therefore the way forward is clear.

This is simply another step in the steady retreat of climate denialists. In and of itself this is a good step forward though.

What is the way forward? I haven't seen or heard of any plan.

Edit: I read the entire article, and I honestly don't see what the issue is. It seems to be a reasonably well thought out evaluation of the current state of climate modeling and data gathering. Knowing how much you don't know is a necessary part of any decision making process. Why would anyone object to what the author has to say?

 

[norseamd]

What is the way forward? I haven't seen or heard of any plan.

sigh ...

Lower emissions?

 

[IronWing]

Coal is one of the largest artificial producers of radioactive waste in the world and even China is shutting down their coal industry.

No, China continues to build new coal plants at an astonishing rate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/china-coal-idUSL3N0K90H720140107

 

[IGBT]

well if your a eco-KOOK it is settled and it's human induced. the eco-KOOK agenda is blind and blinkered to anything else.


http://www.climatehustle.org/