Climate change and human responsibility

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Didn't even notice he's a Fraser Institute alum as well. Yeah, I'm going to take a big ol' pass on this guy's sincerity and scientific credentials.

The article is merely quoting research done by Roger Pielke. Are his scientific credentials also not up to snuff for you?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Didn't even notice he's a Fraser Institute alum as well. Yeah, I'm going to take a big ol' pass on this guy's sincerity and scientific credentials.

I'm less interested in the author's summary, and more interested in what he was summarizing. So if you have to take issue with it, take issue with Roger Pielke Jr. Is he wrong?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by peter12

https://institute.smartprosperity.ca...20Business.pdf

Massively inefficient infrastructure, huge tax subsidies and credits, all at the expensive of cheaper, better, more efficient alternatives.

Ok, I think we are talking about different things here. You said country living which I mistook as rural area. Sounds like you mean suburban developments. My situation is different from that.

[troutman]

Climate Misinformation by Source: Roger Pielke Jr

https://skepticalscience.com/Roger_Pielke_Jr_blog.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/drought...pielke-jr.html

I replied that the indicated comments by Dr. Pielke, and similar ones attributed by Senator Sessions to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, were not representative of mainstream views on this topic in the climate-science community; and I promised to provide for the record a more complete response with relevant scientific references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-pielke-jr
https://thinkprogress.org/obama-scie...d1/#.uyxtwrxk6

https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/a.../roger_pielke/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Ok, I think we are talking about different things here. You said country living which I mistook as rural area. Sounds like you mean suburban developments. My situation is different from that.

I think country living, at this point, is such a rare lifestyle choice that it almost certainly suffers from the opposite of what we are both discussing - chronic underservice.

Anyway, as for the suburbs comprised of single detached homes, they are also massive carbon emitters. We should allow for the construction of new duplexes, fourplexes, and triplexes. In my city of Vancouver, this is currently not allowed in over 70% of the city's available land.

https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/07...s%20Selections

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by troutman

Climate Misinformation by Source: Roger Pielke Jr

https://skepticalscience.com/Roger_Pielke_Jr_blog.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/drought...pielke-jr.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

https://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/a.../roger_pielke/

Sigh. Ignoring the first link(which I did read already, and it's the typical Dana Nuticelli garbage) here's the Wikipedia entry:

Pielke has also written extensively on climate change policy. He has written that he accepts the IPCC view of the underlying science, stating, "The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver of changes in climate. And on this basis alone I am personally convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit greenhouse gas emissions."[10] He also states that, "Any conceivable emissions reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a perceptible impact on the climate for many decades", and from this he concludes that, "In coming decades the only policies that can effectively be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability and change will be adaptive."[11][12]

Now, how can you read that and not nod your head and say "ya, that makes sense"?


I don't really see anything else that discredits him. So I think we should be at least examining these facts that come from places other than the usual "everything is horrible, and it is all CO2's fault".


Please, no more Skeptical Science. There must be other sources you can use to make points.

[Ark2]

Here's Pielke's written presentation if people would prefer to go straight to the source.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/9...883376128.html

[accord1999]

This is what the IPCC says about some extreme weather events:

Do et al. (2017) computed the trends in annual maximum daily streamflow data across the globe over the 1966–2005 period. They found decreasing trends for a large number of stations in western North America and Australia, and increasing trends in parts of Europe, eastern North America, parts of South America, and southern Africa.

In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are not statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers (high confidence), while flood frequency and extreme streamflow have increased in some regions (high confidence).

IPCC SR15 3.3.5.1

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...r3_Low_Res.pdf

Numerous studies leading up to and after AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy (Emanuel, 2005; Elsner et al., 2008; Knutson et al., 2010; Holland and Bruyère, 2014; Klotzbach and Landsea, 2015; Walsh et al., 2016). A theoretical physical basis for such a decrease to occur under global warming was recently provided by Kang and Elsner (2015). However, using a relatively short (20 year) and relatively homogeneous remotely sensed record, Klotzbach (2006) reported no significant trends in global cyclonic activity, consistent with more recent findings of Holland and Bruyère (2014). Such contradictions, in combination with the fact that the almost four decade-long period of remotely sensed observations remains relatively short to distinguish anthropogenically induced trends from decadal and multi-decadal variability, implies that there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.

IPCC SR15 3.3.6

The IPCC AR5 assessed that there was low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at the global scale, but that there was high confidence in observed trends in some regions of the world, including drought increases in the Mediterranean and West Africa and drought decreases in central North America and northwest Australia (Hartmann et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2013).

IPCC SR15 3.3.4.1

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Didn't even notice he's a Fraser Institute alum as well. Yeah, I'm going to take a big ol' pass on this guy's sincerity and scientific credentials.

Well either the rate of the natural disasters he is talking about are increasing or they're not.

Ignore the spin. Does he have a point?

[troutman]

https://science2017.globalchange.gov



Annual precipitation has decreased in much of the West, Southwest, and Southeast and increased in most of the Northern and Southern Plains, Midwest, and Northeast. A national average increase of 4% in annual precipitation since 1901 mostly a result of large increases in the fall season. (Medium confidence)


Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some regions of the United States; however, by geographical scale and duration, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record (very high confidence). While by some measures drought has decreased over much of the continental United States in association with long-term increases in precipitation, neither the precipitation increases nor inferred drought decreases have been confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.


Human activities have contributed substantially to observed ocean–atmosphere variability in the Atlantic Ocean (medium confidence), and these changes have contributed to the observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s (medium confidence).


Both anthropogenic climate change and the legacy of land use/management have an influence on U.S. wildfires and are subtly and inextricably intertwined. Forest management practices have resulted in higher fuel densities in most U.S. forests, except in the Alaskan bush and the higher mountainous regions of the western United States. Nonetheless, there is medium confidence for a human-caused climate change contribution to increased forest fire activity in Alaska in recent decades with a likely further increase as the climate continues to warm, and low to medium confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the western United States based on existing studies.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Please, no more Skeptical Science. There must be other sources you can use to make points.

Why is that exactly? What is YOUR problem with Skeptical Science? Is it because they attack the issue and present information counter to your political ideology, or the fact that they counter the findings of research using it's own methodological process/position against them? I think the problem is that Skeptical Science is too good at destroying these fallacious arguments by exposing both side's failure to comply with methodology in answering questions. I too have problems with Skeptical Science, but only when they do not adhere to the methodology clearly stated in the article they are attempting to discredit. Frankly, many of these articles discredit themselves, and Skeptical Science is just pointing that out.

[photon]

Skeptical Science IS other sources. They don't do any research, each article is just a summary of actual research. Not liking it is like not liking Wikipedia, both are intended as starting points for digging into a topic, not an end authority.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

Skeptical Science IS other sources. They don't do any research, each article is just a summary of actual research. Not liking it is like not liking Wikipedia, both are intended as starting points for digging into a topic, not an end authority.

Like it or not, Skeptical Science makes an argument on the research conducted, which Wikipedia does not. They are very clear in their attack on research and do so by examining the base underpinnings of the research and making sure it meets the methodology discussed in the paper, or points out where it the research is not consistent with methodology. This is one of the things I find most interesting and enjoyable about the site. It takes the research and makes people look at whether it really complied with its own claimed research methodology. Research is only good if it is reliable and consistent, and that is only achieved through consistent application of the methodology identified in the paper itself.

[Fuzz]

My beef with them is they made up the 97% consensus thing, which when you look at the "study" they did, it's absolute trash science. And they've been shouting it form the rooftops for years.



Nice of you to imagine reasons for my dislike of them before I had a chance to answer though. Classy.


Here is one explanation why it is trash science, but you can google yourself and find many many more that all point to the same thing.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#530a1f573f9f

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

My beef with them is they made up the 97% consensus thing, which when you look at the "study" they did, it's absolute trash science. And they've been shouting it form the rooftops for years.



Nice of you to imagine reasons for my dislike of them before I had a chance to answer though. Classy.


Here is one explanation why it is trash science, but you can google yourself and find many many more that all point to the same thing.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#530a1f573f9f

Your response to “trash science” and bad sources is to post an article by Alex Epstein?

Jesus.

[Fuzz]

^ Oh good, this game. It was the first link I found, I have no clue who Alex Epstein is. Like I said, there are many more. If you don't believe me about the 97% claim being trash, go look it up yourself. It's trash. I'm not going to continue on with this, I was asked why I dislike SS, and I answered.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ Oh good, this game. It was the first link I found, I have no clue who Alex Epstein is. Like I said, there are many more. If you don't believe me about the 97% claim being trash, go look it up yourself. It's trash. I'm not going to continue on with this, I was asked why I dislike SS, and I answered.

You were asked because you were bitching about Skep as a bad source.

I know you really do see every light debate as some game to win, but honestly, bitch about sources and expect people to check your sources. If the ones you use aren’t any good either, it’s probably safer just to let people use whatever garbage sources they want and argue the points on merit.

Even just looking at the first page of results re: “97% climate scientist myth”... you’ve got Epstein, Bast, Watts, Spencer... really unbiased sources, right?

Or... maybe not.

97% doesn’t even matter. Anything over 80% is consider strong consensus, and Cook himself wrote years ago that it didn’t matter if it was 90% or 100%.

It could be 97%, or it could be 80%, and they would meaningfully be the same in the scientific community as far as consensus goes.

If you’ve read Cook’s study, you’d know it concluded that 97.1% of scientific papers which TOOK A POSITION on AGW (which was less than 40% of all papers reviewed), agreed with the consensus decision. Maybe the problem with the 97% claim is not that it’s trash, but that you (like a lot of people before you) didn’t actually bother to read what the 97% was referring to?

[stampsx2]

Trudeau to ban single use plastics as early as 2021.

I swear, environmentalists won’t be happy till we’re all vegan eating hippies living in a forest.

Next up for environmental change: livestock

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/06...rly-as-2021-2/

[The Fonz]

I am all for banning single use plastics. How is this a knock on Trudeau?

Edit: full disclaimer, I didn’t read the article. I do stand behind my position on banning single use plastics though, unless someone can convince me otherwise

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I am all for banning single use plastics. How is this a knock on Trudeau?

Edit: full disclaimer, I didn’t read the article. I do stand behind my position on banning single use plastics though, unless someone can convince me otherwise

Probably because everything in this country is getting more and more expensive. This will just add to it. Might make sense to explore cost effective replacements prior to outright banning them?