Consequences of climate change

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

p1t1o
Posts: 865
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:32 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby p1t1o » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:36 pm UTC

I think I vaguely recall something about the global temperature increase causing expansion of the atmosphere, which would have a real (but minor) impact on LEO satellites.

And something about when very large masses of ice melt, or shift, the crust underneath can "relax" a bit, changing topography slightly. Theres that dam in china that has changed the rotational period of the Earth (by a few microseconds) by collecting a large mass of water that wasnt there before.

But I dont think anyone sees these as disaster-level effects. Nobody will notice a few cm height change in mountains and what, satellites become very slightly more expensive than they already are?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

Those are all fairly minor, yeah. Interesting within their niche, but not disaster level. The land thing can actually mitigate rising sea levels in an extremely minor way. Slight silver lining, I guess, but not enough to be a big deal. If you're losing land based glaciers, that's way worse than the inch or two you might get from the lost weight.

Ocean acidification and sea level rise are larger concerns. Coral bleaching can impact ecologies, and there are a few other effects from the former. Maybe not disaster level for everyone, but I could see it being fairly described as such for a town that relies on the fishing industry if the local fisheries are impacted.

Sea level rise only really comes into play when ice atop land melts. If it's in the water, it's like an ice cube in a glass. Water level stays roughly the same. Sea ice is more immediately affected by warming and fluctuates more rapidly, but is a great deal less important. Even a fairly modest rise in sea level can make an oceanside community more vulnerable to storm surges. Humankind tends to favor living near water, so a lot of humanity lives close enough to the coast that even if they're not in danger of flooding, a local flood would certainly impact their lives.

You can see a smaller scale example of this in other coastal changes. There's a lot of land added/removed by water at present, and it can leave an area vulnerable to disaster, or requiring significant costly upkeep for dredging, etc. Extrapolating that out...it's significant. If you're considering beachfront property, I'd suggest erring on the side of caution when considering potential flood/storm threats. In MD, they keep putting new developments in by the water with single digit elevations relative to the Chesapeake. It's been okay so far, but...the margin for error there does not seem comforting.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 07, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

The increased drought, and arable land changes are going to be the biggest disasters that aren't obvious. Like What happens if all the food production in Africa gets stressed because of climate intensified drought, and the Chinese/corporations bought all the good land/water? You have a recipe for unending refugee crisis, and the beginnings of conflict/terrorism/war. And all this unending conflict gives rise to tribalism, which makes everything worse.
Read any Pentagon climate change report, and it's all about weather induced conflict.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby webgiant » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not a denier in any way (I trust scientists to know what they're talking about) but the consequences that I've read about, including in this thread, still don't seem to warrant the kind of panic that some people seem to be having. If we shift to having a cozy Greenland and arable Canada while New York gets submerged and Kansas becomes a desert, but that takes a century or two to happen, that sounds like something that humans are more than able to adapt to. ... As sea levels and deserts encroach on currently inhabited places, those people on the border of the change will face gradual pressure to move, and places that are unlivable now will be opening up and people will be moving to them. It's not like we have to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland right now or they'll all die.


Have you met human beings? Currently there's a huge number of people refusing to accept the science so they can Stay Right Where They Are and Do The Same Things They've Always Done. There will be no Orderly Line Formed to allow everyone to leave on a schedule. There will be a massive panicky move when its way too late to do the move in an orderly fashion. In essence, it is like we have to plan to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland in a few days or they'll all die, because the human beings, like the metaphor** of a frog slowly being boiled, will stubbornly stay put until the new climate has reached near lethal levels.

Before Climate Change there were people who built houses in floodplains, or in forests with lots of bone dry tinder. Humans go where they want to be, and stay there until something lethal shoves them out, but the potential that something will be lethal in the near future is not a hindrance to their choice of accommodations.

There's also the non negligible point that the humans already in a location sometimes resist it when a huge migration happens from somewhere else. Wars and anti-immigration movements sprout from sudden moves of huge numbers of human beings. Moving everyone from New York to Greenland, or even just to Canada, will Cause Comment.

** Thanks to some fortunately ethical research, it was determined quite some time ago that frogs, being dependent on instinct and not governed by silly human foibles, will leap out of a pot of water when the heat is slowly turned up, and well before the water becomes painful to a frog's touch. Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs. Also frogs have less in the way of personal possessions, and don't have relatives nearby they want to wait for as the wildfire/flood gets closer.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:20 am UTC

The question is how they convinced the frogs to stay in the pot even before they started heating it.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7481
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Zamfir » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:59 am UTC

Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:25 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

There would still be a percentage telling everyone who would listen that water warming was a conspiracy and the forming bubbles were part of a natural cycle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:13 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm not a denier in any way (I trust scientists to know what they're talking about) but the consequences that I've read about, including in this thread, still don't seem to warrant the kind of panic that some people seem to be having. If we shift to having a cozy Greenland and arable Canada while New York gets submerged and Kansas becomes a desert, but that takes a century or two to happen, that sounds like something that humans are more than able to adapt to. ... As sea levels and deserts encroach on currently inhabited places, those people on the border of the change will face gradual pressure to move, and places that are unlivable now will be opening up and people will be moving to them. It's not like we have to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland right now or they'll all die.


Have you met human beings? Currently there's a huge number of people refusing to accept the science so they can Stay Right Where They Are and Do The Same Things They've Always Done. There will be no Orderly Line Formed to allow everyone to leave on a schedule. There will be a massive panicky move when its way too late to do the move in an orderly fashion. In essence, it is like we have to plan to suddenly relocate everyone in New York to Greenland in a few days or they'll all die, because the human beings, like the metaphor** of a frog slowly being boiled, will stubbornly stay put until the new climate has reached near lethal levels.


Pfhorrest isn't wrong. One side does advocate panic/oversells disaster*, while the other side advocates the good ol' head in the sand technique. Neither strategy is rational.

*The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Ranbot » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:55 am UTC

p1t1o wrote:And something about when very large masses of ice melt, or shift, the crust underneath can "relax" a bit, changing topography slightly.

That's "post-glacial rebound," which depending on the amount of ice removed can occur in a few years or over thousands of years. For example, around the Great Lakes in US and Canada the ground surface still rebounding today from ~10,0000 years ago when glaciers up to 2 miles high compressed the land and pushed the crust into the mantle.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Heimhenge » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:51 pm UTC

Not as significant, probably, as the other consequences discussed, but I just read an article claiming road travel will become less safe because of lack of infraction enforcement by police. They ran a study comparing traffic stops with temperature and found stops go down as temperatures rise. Something about officers being less motivated to get outa their air conditioned cruiser and interact with a driver.

I have a feeling that would apply to things like a broken tail light or dangling license plate. But I wonder what it does to the decision to enforce speed limits? Here in the USA the rule of thumb seems to be you're OK anywhere up to 10 mph over the posted limit. Would that go up to 15 mph in hot weather? 20 mph?

If you're weaving and crossing lane markers, and are an obvious hazard, I doubt temperature would make a difference. At least I hope so.

So yeah, I suppose less safe roads is another consequence. But like I said ... minor compared to the others.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6488
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:24 am UTC

Long term? Siberia becomes habitable, and a rich source of food. The US midwest becomes a desert again, as it becomes too difficult to deal with the climate changes. The Arctic sea becomes navigable, opening up trade routes with Russia and Canada in the lead.

How fast? Dunno. But when it happens, it will be irreversible.

Now... who benefits? Who loses? Which world leader is by his actions promoting global climate change? Those are left as an exercise to the reader.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Long term? Siberia becomes habitable, and a rich source of food. The US midwest becomes a desert again, as it becomes too difficult to deal with the climate changes. The Arctic sea becomes navigable, opening up trade routes with Russia and Canada in the lead.

How fast? Dunno. But when it happens, it will be irreversible.

Now... who benefits? Who loses? Which world leader is by his actions promoting global climate change? Those are left as an exercise to the reader.

Jose
The rich countries benefit, and survive it. The poor countries suffer. That's the way it's always been.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Humans still wait until its too late to move easily, so the metaphor is good to describe human behavior even though scientifically untrue for frogs.

I don't have a citation, but I would expect that humans also jump out of a pot before it boils.

There would still be a percentage telling everyone who would listen that water warming was a conspiracy and the forming bubbles were part of a natural cycle.

Image
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:02 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

This is a myth.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6488
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:23 am UTC

sardia wrote:The rich countries benefit, and survive it. The poor countries suffer. That's the way it's always been.
That misses the point. Russia wins, the US loses. Now look at what Putin wants. Look at what Putin wants the US to do. Look at what the US has been doing for the last ten or so years. Look at what the US is doing now. Look at who made that decision.

I wonder why.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:37 pm UTC

ucim wrote:That misses the point. Russia wins, the US loses. Now look at what Putin wants. Look at what Putin wants the US to do. Look at what the US has been doing for the last ten or so years. Look at what the US is doing now. Look at who made that decision.
I wonder why.
Jose

When you see hoofprints, think horses not zebras. There's so many better ways to leverage control over Trump into tangible benefits. Your conspiracy tinged musings on Trump climate change via Putin puppeteering are, frankly, kinda dumb. I expected better.

For example, sanctions, perception of importance, NATO unity, etc etc. Not to mention the other lobbyists that don't like climate control.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6488
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:03 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There's so many better ways...
...no doubt. And they are (likely) being used too. But those are short term. Putin (also) thinks long term, something we don't seem to be good at. The presence of horses does not preclude the presence of a zebra or two.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:15 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

This is a myth.


The corrections, such as "gore didn't actually take the bet" are not things that are in dispute. Nothing in your link invalidates my conclusion.

Sure, some people are using it for denialism, and taking it to that extreme is obviously unsupported and meaningless, but a bit of caution with regard to dire predictions is fair.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Sableagle » Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:43 pm UTC

Years ago, it turned out that scientists had been publishing the less alarming predictions rather than the "most likely" predictions in order to avoid being dismissed as alarmists. When the "most likely" predictions turned out to be right, they were accused of not knowing what was going on, instead.

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.

A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

Penn State's Mann also feels that IPCC higher-ups, fearful of being attacked by climate skeptics, have "bent over backwards" to allow greater input from contrarians. "There's no problem in soliciting wide views that fairly represent … a peer group community," he said. "My worry is that they are stacking the deck, giving greater weight to contrarian views than is warranted by peer-reviewed literature."


More recently:
Scientists argue current climate change models understate the problem

The article, published in the National Science Review, describes how the recent growth in resource use, land-use change, emissions, and pollution has made humanity the dominant driver of change in most of the Earth's natural systems, and how these changes, in turn, have important feedback effects on humans with costly and serious consequences.

Furthermore, the authors argue that some of the existing models are unreliable. The United Nations projections of a relatively stable population for the whole of the developed world depend, for instance, on dramatic, and highly unlikely, declines projected in a few key countries. Japan, for example, must decline by 34%, Germany by 31% and Russia by about 30% for the projected stability in total developed country population to be born out.12 In addition, countries often highlighted for their low birth rates, like Italy and Spain, are not projected to decline by even 1% for decades.


What Lies Beneath? The Scientific Understatement of Climate Risks

Three decades ago, when serious debate on human-induced climate change began at the global level, a great deal of statesmanship was on display. There was a preparedness to recognise that this was an issue transcending nation states, ideologies and political parties which had to be addressed proactively in the long-term interests of humanity as a whole, even if the existential nature of the risk it posed was far less clear cut than it is today.

In his book 1984, George Orwell describes a double-speak totalitarian state where most of the population accepts “the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane.”

Orwell could have been writing about climate change and policymaking. International agreements talk of limiting global warming to 1.5–2°C, but in reality they set the world on a path of 3–5°C. Goals are reaffirmed, only to be abandoned. Coal is “clean”. Just 1°C of warming is already dangerous, but this cannot be said. The planetary future is hostage to myopic national self-interest. Action is delayed on the assumption that as yet unproven technologies will save the day, decades hence. The risks are existential, but it is “alarmist” to say so. A one-in-two chance of missing a goal is normalised as reasonable.

Politics and policymaking have norms: rules and practices, assumptions and boundaries, that constrain and shape them. In recent years, the previous norms of statesmanship and long-term thinking have disappeared, replaced by an obsession with short-term political and commercial advantage Climate policymaking is no exception.

A fast, emergency-scale transition to a post-fossil fuel world is absolutely necessary to address climate change. But this is excluded from consideration by policymakers because it is considered to be too disruptive. The orthodoxy is that there is time for an orderly economic transition within the current short-termist political paradigm. Discussion of what would be safe –– less warming that we presently experience –– is non-existent. And so we have a policy failure of epic proportions.

Policymakers, in their magical thinking, imagine a mitigation path of gradual change, to be constructed over many decades in a growing, prosperous world. The world not imagined is the one that now exists: of looming financial instability; of a global crisis of political legitimacy; of a sustainability crisis that extends far beyond climate change to include all the fundamentals of human existence and most significant planetary boundaries (soils, potable water, oceans, the atmosphere, biodiversity, and so on); and of severe global energy sector dislocation.

IPCC reports, of necessity, do not always contain the latest available information. Consensus-building can lead to “least drama”, lowest-common-denominator outcomes which overlook critical issues. This is particularly the case with the “fat-tails” of probability distributions, that is, the high-impact but relatively low-probability events where scientific knowledge is more limited. Vested interest pressure is acute in all directions; climate denialists accuse the IPCC of alarmism, whereas climate action proponents consider the IPCC to be far too conservative. To cap it all, the IPCC conclusions are subject to intense political oversight before being released, which historically has had the effect of substantially watering-down sound scientific findings.

Scientific reticence — a reluctance to spell out the full risk implications of climate science in the absence of perfect information — has become a major problem. Whilst this is understandable, particularly when scientists are continually criticised by denialists and political apparatchiks for speaking out, it is extremely dangerous given the “fat tail” risks of climate change. Waiting for perfect information, as we are continually urged to do by political and economic elites, means it will be too late to act.


As for month-by-month updates on whether each month is seeing a temperature change above or below half of whatever figure was used for that bet that was never taken ...

cooling_trends.png


I'd like to do a TED talk about the science not being settled. People keep saying we shouldn't do anything at all about the problem yet because the science isn't settled. I'd go out into a desert somewhere and shoot a huge amount of 5.56x45mm XM193 at huge plywood boards from various distances, and record the sounds of the bullets passing a camera placed some way in front of the target (and shielded by rifle plates). I'd plot the circumcircles of roughly equilateral groups and the centres of the end-to-end lines of roughly linear groups, and I'd use them to plot the trajectories of the bullets. I'd also plot the spread of the group over range and over time. I'd be able to see, from the combined data, just how much less accurate the bullets become when they fall back below the speed of sound. I think that'd be interesting.
If I shot really extraordinarily well, used up a lot of ammunition or got very lucky, I could conceivably establish a range at which those bullets won't penetrate a half-inch plywood board with a direct hit. I'm sure it'd be a long way down-range, and my group size would be bigger than any board I could reasonably transport and set up without specialised equipment. Still, maybe I could get a few bullets wedged in the wood or leave a few dents.
Then I could invite someone to sit on a chair, centred on the board, while I continued to shoot at it from just another 100m beyond that distance. Where the bullets would go, with shifting winds and changing temperatures and the inherent inaccuracy of mass-produced ammunition, would not be settled, and neither would the velocity at which they'd arrive. It is also not settled whether or not a bullet that can't quite penetrate such a board is still life-threatening. Anyone willing to sit on that chair while I shoot at them for ... $1 a shot? No? Quite.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:42 pm UTC

ucim wrote:...no doubt. And they are (likely) being used too. But those are short term. Putin (also) thinks long term, something we don't seem to be good at. The presence of horses does not preclude the presence of a zebra or two.

Jose

Citation that Putin talks or cares about global warming? He's a leader of a big country, shouldn't be hard to find.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:33 pm UTC

I am in agreement that Putin probably gives zero craps about global warming.

As to the rest, yes, denialists are definitely taking issue with everything somehow. It's their way, and they'll do it regardless of accuracy, because their motivations are elsewhere. Gore's film was definitely alarmism, that's why he's a magnet for parody and mockery, and his unwillingness to take a bet merely ends up looking like a lack of confidence in what he's predicting.

The IPCC reports vary in terms of accuracy, but saying they consistently underpredict warming requires significant cherry picking. Yes, denialists also cherry pick, but...they're wrong. Using them as a justification isn't sound for anything.

A lot of this may appear to be simply PR, but PR is important. Showing an average trendline for the IPCC prediction, with the observational average below it gives off a "the model is wrong, and unduly paranoid" impression. Showing the entire range of the IPCC prediction, and the observational average within it gives a very different impression.

I'd say that the problems are largely focused in scientific reporting. The actual science of measuring temperatures and such is pretty humdrum and routine, not really a great deal of serious controversy there...the issue comes from the way advocacy misuses or poorly portrays it. Yes, the denialists will misreport either way, but calling out similarly low standards on our side remains important.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6488
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:34 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Citation that Putin talks or cares about global warming? He's a leader of a big country, shouldn't be hard to find.
I'll concede (without looking) that there are none. But I also don't see the downside (to Russia), so not being concerned doesn't imply not thinking it's happening.

I'm just looking at the way the cards are falling, and going "hmmmm".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
sardia wrote:Citation that Putin talks or cares about global warming? He's a leader of a big country, shouldn't be hard to find.
I'll concede (without looking) that there are none. But I also don't see the downside (to Russia), so not being concerned doesn't imply not thinking it's happening.

I'm just looking at the way the cards are falling, and going "hmmmm".

Jose


I googled, and it's not actually "none", but it is low, and the statements do seem to support generally not caring about global warming. In fairness, from a geopolitical perspective, Russia has incentives to not care.

Drawing conclusions from who benefits is only one factor, though. You can easily get into conspiratorial territory if you believe that everything must have been orchestrated to benefit someone. Means, motive, opportunity. If any of the three are obviously lacking, you can probably dispense with it any sort of conspiracy. Additionally, historical conspiracies are reasonably rare, and the larger, more complex, and unusual, the less likely any given conspiracy is to be actually functional and still subtle(Russia in particular can be very unsubtle).

I think we can adequately explain US denialism without resorting to Russian explanations.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:46 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

This is a myth.


The corrections, such as "gore didn't actually take the bet" are not things that are in dispute. Nothing in your link invalidates my conclusion.

The correction that the trend in the bet was at one extreme of the actual prediction, and that the prediction was from a then-out-of-date report, seem to pretty much invalidate your conclusion, actually.

Over certain periods since then, it's true that the change was less than half of the most extreme warming, meaning technically closer to "no change", but that's a bullshit metric unless you're actively trying to push the denialist position.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6488
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby ucim » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:02 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You can easily get into conspiratorial territory if you believe that everything must have been orchestrated to benefit someone. [...] I think we can adequately explain US denialism without resorting to Russian explanations.
Yes, you are correct. I was not proposing a conspiracy that drives US denialism. But to help it along a bit... I don't think that's a stretch at all.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:53 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Eebster the Great wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The Armstrong-Gore bet is an example demonstrating this. While Gore refused to actually take the bet of ten grand as to if he was correct, or if the hypothesis of "no change" was more accurate, the resulting data was closer to the latter interpretation. This is not the same thing as disproving global warming. It's merely acknowledging that folks have over-represented the danger, sometimes to the point that deniers actually had a more accurate forecast of the future.

This is a myth.


The corrections, such as "gore didn't actually take the bet" are not things that are in dispute. Nothing in your link invalidates my conclusion.

Sure, some people are using it for denialism, and taking it to that extreme is obviously unsupported and meaningless, but a bit of caution with regard to dire predictions is fair.

It's not so much that Gore "didn't take" the bet, it's more that there never was a bet. Armstrong contacted Gore out of the blue asking for a wager as a PR stunt, with no specific predictions on the line from either side. In order to win, Armstrong would not have to prove that there was no warming (his actual claim) but that the amount of warming was less than the "prediction" he made up. That's kind of the biggest problem. There was no prediction, by Gore or by scientists, for a particular amount of warming this early, at least no specific one that would suggest Armstrong was "winning" somehow.

Instead, they are using a predicted average warming of several decades and picking out single months as if that meant anything. They are using a linear model of warming that is in direct conflict with the actual IPCC prediction. They are using the very top end of the prediction, which means that an amount of warming within the 95% CI for the IPCC could still be counted as a "win" for Armstrong. This number was also already out of date when the bet was made. And the actual observed warming has not been much less than predicted; it's actually pretty much exactly on track.

In other words, every fucking thing about this is wrong. It is an actual myth, not some event whose details are hazy or misreported.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:14 pm UTC

I'm not contesting the science here. In practice, that's usually quite accurate, with a great deal of care taken. I'm pointing out that Pfforest's impression of the two sides is valid, albeit largely because of folks other than the scientists themselves. It's not that the temperature measurements themselves are inaccurate. They're not.

It's that by the time things are filtered to the popular consciousness, both sides have twisted the facts greatly. The denialists will focus on the freshly picked cherry that shows no change or cooling, and the warming advocates will pick the most disastrous interpretation. I think it's important to seperate out the scientists from the media and advocates. Gore himself isn't really a climate scientist, is he?

If we care about truth, then we should regard media misrepresentations as not actually impacting the credibility of the scientists behind it. The media bungles tech reporting all the time, but everyone accepts that computers work.

Unfortunately, if we also have to care about other people accepting the truth, we have to worry about PR stuff. And unfortunately, the advocates blur the lines, and create a false equivalence with the denialists, who really have only the shifty PR side, with extremely little actual scientific backing. The equality, such as it is, lies entirely on the PR level.

gmalivuk wrote:Over certain periods since then, it's true that the change was less than half of the most extreme warming, meaning technically closer to "no change", but that's a bullshit metric unless you're actively trying to push the denialist position.


Closer to no change is certainly not actually the same as no change. If you actually look at the data, warming is obviously happening. In any case, the "bet" is usually justified as winning over a ten year period in addition to every month, so focusing on the per-month aspect somewhat misses the point. The per month aspect is only important in that it provides additional PR events during which denialism is seen to "win" again. Naturally, they bury the times when they lose.

I doubt most people look at the data for studies. They hear the tag line on the media or see the percentage number in a meme on social media, and forward it.

All of the above strategy was enabled by Gore's initial hyperbole. Go back, watch his initial film, and see if he didn't get a little too hyperbolic on his disaster predictions. Estimating his claims as the IPCC worst case is actually overly kind. Gore often made flat out predictions like the arctic sea being free of ice in the summer. With the benefit of hindsight, we can clearly see that he overstated the results. Gore created all sorts of easy targets for denialists to take pot shots at, and fed them easy wins. His strategy is...not great.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

OK, but the claim that "warmists" exaggerate the risks has not been supported by anything else you said. You just keep asserting it, even after reading evidence that scientists have actually been downplaying the risks for years. And for instance, an ice-free arctic is absolutely a possibility, maybe even one within 30 years. A northwest passage is already open every year.

Gore's presentations are misleading in many ways, often because he isn't clear enough in distinguishing between far-fetched or long-term impacts and the ones that scientists actually predicted. But if you watch his speeches, you will see that he does in fact distinguish between them. Yes, some people not paying close attention might come away thinking he said the antarctic glaciers would all melt, that the sea would rise seven meters, and that the Earth would end up like Venus or something. But that's not what he actually said.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:38 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:OK, but the claim that "warmists" exaggerate the risks has not been supported by anything else you said. You just keep asserting it, even after reading evidence that scientists have actually been downplaying the risks for years. And for instance, an ice-free arctic is absolutely a possibility, maybe even one within 30 years. A northwest passage is already open every year.


The problem isn't scientists. You guys are both defending scientists, but largely, they're not the issue here.

Here, if you want a citation on Gore's claims: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Basically, he's making predictions, and then attributing them to scientists in general. His predictions are not based on scientific consensus. They are, at best, based on particularly aggressive citations.

This is why comparing his predictions to the IPCC worst case is reasonable, or even overly kind. He's grabbing the most extreme examples, and in his quotes, failing to include qualifiers found in the original study, resulting in further overstatement.

He's not alone in this...Kerry also made similar statements regarding the arctic.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/john-kerry/kerry-claims-arctic-will-be-ice-free-2013/

It's a heaping dose of cherry picking for sources, followed by ditching the important criteria about summer. When a denialist does the same thing, we rightfully call it out as a lie.

Gore's presentations are misleading in many ways, often because he isn't clear enough in distinguishing between far-fetched or long-term impacts and the ones that scientists actually predicted. But if you watch his speeches, you will see that he does in fact distinguish between them. Yes, some people not paying close attention might come away thinking he said the antarctic glaciers would all melt, that the sea would rise seven meters, and that the Earth would end up like Venus or something. But that's not what he actually said.


Yeah, he didn't state an exact date for sea level rise, but he does talk about it in the near future. The general depiction is designed to cause alarm, not to accurately portray the danger. Yeah, we might have a twenty foot sea level rise at some point, but the presentation is clearly designed to cause people to believe it is a far more imminent danger than it actually is.

So, while he may not have specified a hard date, describing an extremely distant danger on human timescales as the near future still ranks as sketchy.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:08 pm UTC

"Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013." Kerry got his data from Wieslaw Maslowski, a researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who as early as 2007 predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2013. Similar projections have been trumpeted by a handful of other scientists, including Warwick Vincent, director of the Center for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec and NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally. Kerry's claim also leaves out an important nuance; as Stroeve said, most climate scientists agree that summer ice is likely to disappear at some point, but that the oceans will still freeze in the winter for a very long time. However, Kerry's op-ed could make it sound as if the Arctic will devoid of ice all year long.
They rate that as mostly false?

They actually quote the guy as saying specifically "ice-free in the summer of 2013" and then claim it "could make it sound as if the Arctic will devoid of ice all year long." Well, sure, and "I have several pencils of various hardnesses" could make it sound as if I think I'm surrounded by vampires and I'm planning to go on a staking spree.

Several scientists made a projection. Kerry said scientists made that projection. Mostly false?

Right, and "That Hitler guy turned out to be a psychotic goddam mass-murdering asshole" is mostly false because not everybody agrees that any specific god has ever actually damned Hitler.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:40 pm UTC

Scientists did not generally predict that(nor did it happen). Losing ice coverage in the summer, sure. Ice-free, no.

Thus, mostly false.

The reasoning's in the article, and the prediction was quite far off from the scientific consensus. IPCC is "latter half of the 21st Century", so predicting it would happen in four years is a significant difference.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:54 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Scientists did not generally predict that(nor did it happen). Losing ice coverage in the summer, sure. Ice-free, no.

Um, he actually was talking about the summer. The summer of 2013. Not the winter of 2013. I'm not sure if you read the article you linked.

The quote was:
Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013


And politifact claims:
Kerry got his data from Wieslaw Maslowski, a researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who as early as 2007 predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by the summer of 2013.


So true then, not false.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4884
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:29 am UTC

I'm a little too burnt out to tell if this was your point (or what anyone's point is at the moment), but "in the summer of 2013" and "by the summer of 2013" are different things. The former implies only at least a temporary period of icelessness at that time, the latter implies ongoing icelessness from that time onward.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:02 pm UTC

Yeah, the scientist Kerry paraphrased made a *stronger* statement than Kerry.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:33 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm a little too burnt out to tell if this was your point (or what anyone's point is at the moment), but "in the summer of 2013" and "by the summer of 2013" are different things. The former implies only at least a temporary period of icelessness at that time, the latter implies ongoing icelessness from that time onward.


That exact point is made explicit on the politifact page w/regard to Kerry, yeah.

I think it's less critical than the cherry picking, because it's a fine distinction, but Gore didn't even bother to clarify the summer thing at all in some of his statements.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Eebster the Great » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm a little too burnt out to tell if this was your point (or what anyone's point is at the moment), but "in the summer of 2013" and "by the summer of 2013" are different things. The former implies only at least a temporary period of icelessness at that time, the latter implies ongoing icelessness from that time onward.


That exact point is made explicit on the politifact page w/regard to Kerry, yeah.

I think it's less critical than the cherry picking, because it's a fine distinction, but Gore didn't even bother to clarify the summer thing at all in some of his statements.

He was not supporting your position. Again, the point is that Kerry's statement was, if taken very literally, actually not even as strong as the scientists he was referencing (though in reality I think they were trying to make the same claim). This is not as crazy as it sounds. The dates given for "ice-free summers" is not the same as a date for a single day with no ice cover ("no" actually meaning "very little," since there will always be bits of ice around some northern islands).

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:44 pm UTC


User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I'm a little too burnt out to tell if this was your point (or what anyone's point is at the moment), but "in the summer of 2013" and "by the summer of 2013" are different things. The former implies only at least a temporary period of icelessness at that time, the latter implies ongoing icelessness from that time onward.


That exact point is made explicit on the politifact page w/regard to Kerry, yeah.

I think it's less critical than the cherry picking, because it's a fine distinction, but Gore didn't even bother to clarify the summer thing at all in some of his statements.

He was not supporting your position. Again, the point is that Kerry's statement was, if taken very literally, actually not even as strong as the scientists he was referencing (though in reality I think they were trying to make the same claim). This is not as crazy as it sounds. The dates given for "ice-free summers" is not the same as a date for a single day with no ice cover ("no" actually meaning "very little," since there will always be bits of ice around some northern islands).

Indeed, politifact objected to Kerry's statement on the grounds that the prediction he said scientists had made and which was implicit in the prediction politifact said that scientists had made could be taken as meaning the prediction that scientists actually had made.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11354
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:59 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Indeed, politifact objected to Kerry's statement on the grounds that the prediction he said scientists had made and which was implicit in the prediction politifact said that scientists had made could be taken as meaning the prediction that scientists actually had made.


I believe they objected to it on the basis of it being potentially interpreted as "The arctic ocean is ice free, starting at this time", rather than "the arctic ocean is free of ice in the summers, starting at this time".

It's quite likely that Kerry had no intent to deceive, merely spoke slightly imprecisely. Not such a big deal. Selecting a prediction far from the mainstream, granting credence to a prediction with essentially no chance of coming true, results in obvious skepticism when it is proven wrong. That's the more concerning problem than a mere misunderstanding.

Yes, one can attribute a view that only a couple of scientists take to "scientists", from a certain point of view. However, if someone said "Scientists don't believe global warming is real", we would all rightfully object to the statement. Only a very, very few scientists take such a view, so presenting such a viewpoint as if it were mainstream would be deceptive and a bit dishonest, yes? This is the same sort of thing, but from the other way 'round.

It's not even a global warming specific issue. Media reporting on say, what foods are healthy, get a bit of skepticism from whiplashing around, but it largely isn't the scientists to blame. If you read the source studies, they're generally quite reasonable. It's the media insistence on boiling things down to good/bad that's to blame. They take things to an extreme that isn't warranted by the source, but attribute the more simplified, extreme view to the scientists(often generically identified as such, rather than more precisely).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Consequences of climate change

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
It's quite likely that Kerry had no intent to deceive, merely spoke slightly imprecisely.

Except his "imprecision" in quoting (what politifact says was the actual scientific prediction) resulted in a weaker statement that you have to stretch even further to interpret as meaning "no more ice in the Arctic after this time, ever".

Of course, the article politifact itself links to is also fairly clear about the in the summer part, so again you have to be pretty intentionally misrepresenting the claim to suppose that it means there won't be any ice after that point.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests