Tags
Climate Change, Cthulhu, Donald Trump, Environmentalism, global warming, H.P. Lovecraft, Horror, Koch Brothers, Madness
What could be more evil than working to end all life as we know it? It’s a tough question for me, because I’m not in the habit of using the term ‘evil’ in direct reference to anything that happens in the real world. Mostly, I think of that reluctance as healthy restraint, but perhaps restraint isn’t always that healthy after all. Skepticism sometimes acts as the hand servant to kind of inertia. No need to think or do anything drastic. Let’s wait for the evidence! You can keep saying that until it’s too late. All of which brings me back to the notion of evil, because normal human cognitive bias is one thing and a focused political agenda is quite another. Uncertainty is one thing. When such an agenda imperils life as we know it, it would be a mistake to think of that as just another opinion. It would be a mistake to think of it as anything less than a threat, or to think of that threat in moderate terms.
Don’t get me wrong. Global warming is not the fault of denialists. We in the industrialized world are all contributing to global warming, but some folks are working damned hard to make sure we keep right on doing it, to keep questions about global warming and an effective response off the table, and toprevent all of us from addressing our collective responsibility as we ought to.
We are not supposed to demonize folks we disagree with, right? But there are times when the actual context of real world events finds its parallels in mythology and fiction. I can’t help thinking the issue of global warming has presented us one of those times.
Global warming sounds a lot like the Great Old One sleeping deep in the South Pacific. It’s hard to believe that such a threat could exist, hard to grasp the full significance of the prospect. It’s much more easy to dismiss it as yet another myth, a false god worshiped by fools and primitive peoples. If taken seriously, on the other hand, the thought is maddening. Like Cthulhu waiting in the deep, global warming threatens to devour everything we do and everything we care about. How does one grasp that and then go on about his life? How do you build a bridge knowing it will one day rest unused under a harsh sun? How do you write a book, conscious of the day there will be no-one left to read it? How does anyone look at a child knowing what’s coming without feeling a terrible urge to tears?
What to do about this threat? That’s a damned hard question. For myself, I couldn’t count the number of changes that must happen to combat the coming terror. I couldn’t even count the number of plastics in the room around me, starting with the computer keys I am tapping away at to write this blog post. I certainly couldn’t imagine my travels or my place of residence in the wake of the changes necessary to halt global warming. How would I eat? How would food find its way to me, let alone the millions living in the cities? It’s all way too much. The change is simply not possible!
If the world as we know it must change immediately (more like yesterday) in order to save the world as we know it… well that is a maddening thought indeed! It’s more than a little like saying the end of the world is a virtual certainty.
…and Cthulhu lies waiting beneath the waves.
As maddening as the prospect of doing something about climate change is for me, I think it must be all that much more difficult for those whose world view is entirely defined by the free market. Global warming is not merely a challenge to our future. It is a challenge to our present and repudiation of our past. Global warming refutes the cost/benefit analysis of every single transaction carried out since the fossil fuel revolution. (They all have externalities not yet settled.) It denies the value of progress. It turns the angels of manifest destiny into the harbingers of doom, a prospect once real only to those unfortunate enough to stand in the way of that destiny. Global warming changes everything. It transforms the meaning if history even as it demands a new social order. If we are to ever have a future, that future will not be reckoned as we have reckoned the past. For those deeply committed to a world as a function of supply and demand, it is not merely a daunting call for change; it’s a claim that their own world is an illusion. Faced with such a prospect, I can well understand why some people might think it better to deny the whole thing.
…but toward what end?
If Cthulhu is really sleeping there in the ocean, it won’t help much to pretend he is merely plankton. So what is the end game for climate change denial? You cannot build a better world on the present world order. You cannot even maintain this one. That is the terrible prospect which confronts us all. So, what will actually be accomplished by the billions of dollars poured into the effort to confound the issue and keep serious discussions of climate change off the table? What is to be gained by dismissing the whole thing as a Chinese conspiracy.
The thought that keeps creeping into my skull is this. We won’t experience climate change as a natural disaster. Hell, we aren’t experiencing it that way now. By ‘we’ I mean those of us in the developed world. Sure there are farmers whose crops no longer grow in certain places, and there are people whose homes are washing away, but these are lives lived on the margins of the modern global order, and for most of humanity these are stories about far away people and places. The narratives taking shape in modern media (even those reflecting a ‘liberal’ view on the subject) will reflect global warming in countless subtle forms. It will take the form of stories about rising prices, changes in consumer behavior, shifts in population, perhaps even a wave of refugees here and there. …and of course there will be political disputes over the consequences of all of this.
This is all broad sketches, I know, but my point is that most of us will experience climate change as social upheaval. There will always be a person or a policy between us and the natural phenomenon driving our new hardships. We will always be able to respond to climate change as though it were this or that bastard making our lives more difficult. We may never get a moment where Cthulhu shows his ugly face. It will always be possible to see his terror in the form of someone acting in a way we probably don’t like, maybe even one we are willing to fight about.
…all of which falls well short of dealing with the real issues.
So again, what is the end-game for denialists? I’m not talking about the every day Joe or Jane who isn’t convinced. I am talking about those financing the maze of think tanks and professional pundits, those who long ago transformed climate change from a scientific question to a partizan politics. I am talking about a President who won’t say whether or not he believes in global warming but tells us by his very actions that he does not. For these people, I suspect the payoff is very much what they get out of all their other political activities; it’s a chance to maintain their own status at the top of the current social order. In the context of climate change, this can mean little more than a chance to keep their privilege as long as possible while the rest of society unravels. There is no riding this disaster out of course, but the progeny of the wealthy may well feel its results long after others have died of it.
I keep writing this as though I am talking about future events, but of course the process has already begun. It will get worse, to be sure, hence the relevance of the future tense. But some are already feeling the effects even as others pretend there is no new disaster under the sun. In any event, I can’t help thinking the real benefit to the financiers of climate change denial will be little other than the hope that their children will be among the last to suffer the full effects of climate change.
This too is a Lovecraftian theme.
In effect, the financiers of climate change denial are hoping Cthulhu will eat them last.
(P.S. Thanks to Milady DeBennet for producing the meme for me.)
I think that Cthulhu has pretty much won this one. Humans have never coped well with the creeping baseiline problem (aka ‘boiling the frog’) and it’s tragically inevitable that the problem of global warming will only be acknowledged on a wide enough scale to act far past the time when such action can be effective (as you say – yesterday). I was angry and active for a decade and a half. Now, I’m resigned. I think we’ve blown it. I really feel sorry for my kids.
The sad coda to your story is that Cthulhu *will* effectively eat the bastards responsible last. The first people to go will be the poor and the vulnerable. Then the vast middle class will turn to war as resources vanish. And the rich and powerful will, as ever, sit on their fat arses and slurp the gravy until that final day when the full scale of the disaster hits them. But you can be sure that the very last thing on their minds will be remorse.
This is something I wrote six years ago, fwiw.
http://www.tetherdcow.com/is-it-just-me-or-is-it-warm-in-here/
Every time I read something like this I think that often people confuse two words, think and believe. One operates on a rational level and one on the emotional. Too many people view everything these days as believe or not believe. Science has nothing to do with belief which is why it is so difficult for many to deal with or understand scientific data. They want something to confirm whatever they happen to believe. I also think that when, at the rate we are going, disaster strikes the developed world, only the few will remain, e.g. the Afar in Ethiopia who have successfully wandered the desert herding animals for over a thousand years.
Cthulhu can rest easy. Climate data doesn’t appear to indicate he’ll have to eat anyone anytime soon.
And that’s the crux of the matter. NIMBY-ism at its finest. Nevertheless Cthulhu is coming.
Pray tell, enlighten us with the NIMBY-ism of which you speak. Put it in empirical data terms, please, that we can all understand. Thanks.
Don’t take my word for it. There’s this thing out now, it’s called the internet and there’s a search engine on the internet called Google. It’s worth checking out so you can find this information for yourself.
Thanks for your sage advice. I am VERY familiar with using the Internet for research. I use it all the time.
Thus, for that very reason, I request again… Please put your NIMBY-ism in empirical data terms so that we can all understand.
I’m beginning to think you might not be able to do that. 😉 😉
Cthulhu shifts restlessly in his sleep. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/world-octopus-and-squid-populations-are-booming
A few years ago the series ‘Cosmos’ was on tv. For those that watched Neil Degrasse Tyson present the show he made this statement, “If the world stopped using fossil fuels right now perhaps we might have a chance”. Anyone that heard that knew it wouldn’t happen.
With the present power structure in Washington warming of the planet will hasten. We see disturbing changes now. Our natural resources are becoming strained. Oceans aren’t producing the fish it once did, world temperatures are increasing and the list is endless.
Check the World Clock and see how populations are increasing at an alarming rate. This is the crux of the problem.
We can worry but nothing is going to change. The ball rolls forward.
I certainly agree that overpopulation is putting stresses on natural resources. Fish populations are down because of over fishing.
The 1.1 degree C rise in earth’s temperature since 1880 combined with CO2 rise to 405ppm has increased earth’s food production by about 14% or so. That has greatly helped to feed earth’s burgeoning population of around 7.5 billion humans.
Would you mind documenting any other “disturbing changes” we are seeing now? I’m just curious what they are. Thanks.
Did you just say that rising CO2 and temperature was responsible for food production increases?? Wow! That is complete and utter nonsense. The Green Revolution? You were talking about Google and searching awhile back, but the problem is that most people do not know how to take information in without it filtering through all their biases. Much relevant information is simply ignored. That is how you come to make wild statements like yours connecting food production and CO2.
Two studies…
“Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants”
– Taub et al., Nature Education (2010)
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
This paper identifies increased crop yields and other effects on plant growth due to increases in CO2. It appears in Nature Education, a publication of the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). Nature is the oldest and probably the most prestigious science organization in the world.
An interesting side effect is that increased CO2 decreases the amount of water needed in plant growth.
Furthermore, Taub et al. conclude that most crop yields will increase due to increases in CO2 for at least the next 100 years. Taub did not predict an end.
“Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments”
– Donohue et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 6/19/2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
This study analyzes the effect of increased plant area growth on planet earth due to increased CO2. It is published in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
I rarely make statements I cannot back up with real peer-reviewed evidence from credible sources.
————————-
Note:
I did make a misstatement above. I said plant growth has increased by 14%. Taub in his FACE experiments puts it at 12%-14% for wheat, rice and soybeans.
I was quoting from memory, which is never a good idea.
Why don’t we ask the animals about climate change…?
https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Effects-on-Wildlife-and-Habitat.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/ipcc-climate-report-wildlife-impact
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2013-05-09-effects-climate-change-uk-wildlife#
http://www.scidev.net/global/biodiversity/news/andean-biodiversity-at-high-risk-from-climate-cha.html
http://www.scidev.net/global/biodiversity/news/climate-change-may-severely-affect-mexican-wildli.html
I’m not claiming this is an exhaustive or even representative selection. Unlike some people, I’m not paid to spend all day arguing about climate change.
Leonard Nimoy is not Neil deGrasse Tyson, but in his old Cosmos-like show “In Search Of…” he presented scientific evidence from climate scientists for a different view of earth’s climate future:
Consensus thought can change dramatically in just a few decades.
On top of a 270 ft high hill towering above Oregon’s Willamette Valley, about 50 miles southwest of Portland, there is a 90 ton chunk of Rocky Mountain granite named “Erratic Rock”.
It’s called “Erratic” because it’s a type of stone not found in the region. It was carried some 500 miles on an iceberg and dropped on top that hill by a massive flood.
The Noah-like flood occurred when an ice dam near present day Missoula, Montana burst sometime between 12,000 and 18,000 years ago. Back then half of North America was buried below mile high glaciers.
Erratic Rock is a pretty good example of extreme climate change in action.
The end of the last ice age was indeed extreme change, but it was not sustained and did not involve ocean chemistry to near the degree that the current warming is and will. Comparing the two events is really like comparing apples and oranges. But I’m not sure why you were talking about the end of the ice age anyway. What does it have to do with this human-caused change? Other than showing us how far sea levels can rise and dramatic events can unfold as a result of the large-scale melting of ice.
Never make statements that cannot be back up with real peer-reviewed evidence from credible sources.
That being said, two studies…
“Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants”
– Taub et al., Nature Education (2010)
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
This paper identifies increased crop yields and other effects on plant growth due to increases in CO2. It appears in Nature Education, a publication of the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). Nature is the oldest and probably the most prestigious science organization in the world.
An interesting side effect is that increased CO2 decreases the amount of water needed in plant growth by 22%.
Furthermore, Taub et al. conclude that most crop yields will increase due to increases in CO2 for at least the next 100 years. Taub did not predict an end.
“Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments”
– Donohue et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 6/19/2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/full
This study analyzes the effect of increased plant area growth on planet earth due to increased CO2. It is published in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
————————-
Note:
I did make a misstatement above. I said plant growth has increased by 14%. Taub in his FACE experiments puts it at 12%-14% for wheat, rice and soybeans.
I was quoting from memory, which is never a good idea.
Too late for planet Earth and it’s people. “Cosmos” hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson said in his series that if the entire world stopped carbon emissions IMMERDIATELY we might have a chance.
That has not happened.
I missed “Cosmos”. What is the basis for Neil Degrasse Tyson’s thinking that there is an immediate “carbon emissions” threat to earth’s safety any time soon? What data does he provide to support that conclusion?
Silence in response to reasonable questions speaks volumes at times, doesn’t it? lol!!!
It does speak volumes. But probably not for the reasons you think. No-one bothers arguing with creationists or homeopaths anymore either.
You asked elsewhere: “A question. Can anyone please, PLEASE explain to me what credible evidence supports a catastrophic view of human-caused climate change?”
Sure.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Work your way through it. Every legitimate argument you think you have is addressed here.
Very curious response.
Your reference does not answer the original question.
The Skeptical Science reference debunks what it calls “myths”. If I had asked for poorly done, short near-meaningless answers to contrived myths it would be a brilliant answer. Unfortunately, I did not.
Few people, including me, care much about arguments, regardless of quality, against any theory.
What people care about is evidence that proves catastrophic human-caused climate change is real, harmful and demands immediate action likely costing 100s of trillions of dollars. That matters.
Those are two VERY different things.
I again challenge anyone here to answer the question…
Here are generally accepted empirical data already known that you can use as a starting point to prove catastrophic human-caused climate change theory:
1-Earth’s temperature has risen about 1.1 degrees C since 1880
2-CO2 in earth’s atmosphere has increase from about 280ppmv to about 405ppmv since the industrial age
3-The increase in earth’s atmospheric CO2 is human-caused
4-CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can cause warming
5-Arctic sea ice has decrease about 40-45% since the mid-1970s
6-Sea level is currently rising at about 3mm/year (11.8″/century)
I gave you the bullets. Put them in your gun.
Care to try again? Good luck.
Yeah, you didn’t really bother reading the page there, did you? You looked at it for a nanosecond and decided you knew what it was all about. Your questions are all comprehensively addressed there, you just don’t care.
Creationism and homeopathy.
For the record…
I’ve read that web page before. I quickly browsed through it again. Also, I’ve been subscribed to Skeptical Science’s email list for years.
Please explain my misinterpretation…
Did it not say, “Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths”?
Did it not have two columns labeled “Climate Myth” and “What the Science Says”?
Did it not have 195 “myths” with 195 mostly undocumented one-line answers?
Doesn’t that kinda sorta sound like it didn’t answer the original question which is:
“Can anyone please, PLEASE explain to me what credible evidence SUPPORTS a catastrophic view of human-caused climate change?”
An argument against something is not an argument for something else.
It’s obvious that SK reference doesn’t answer the question.
I will leave it to you to explain how creationism and homeopathy (I had to look that one up) are part of climate science. I missed the peer reviewed papers that make those connections. lol!!!
You gonna answer the question or not? Heck, I already gave you ammunition. What more do you want? You want me to shoot the gun for you, too? 🙂
You are now playing the kind of semantic footsie that defines the ‘arguments’ of people with an ideology.
This, for example, is one of the ‘bullets’ in your gun:
“3-The increase in earth’s atmospheric CO2 is human-caused”
You choose to define the Skeptical Science take on this as ‘a one line answer’ because that kind of flip response suits your ideological posistion, and your representation of it here. Except, it’s not that at all, which again makes me wonder if you’ve actually bothered to read that page. In this case, I will spell it out for you, but I’m not going to do it for every single one of your ‘bullets’ (which are all addressed somewhere on that page)
The SS page says:
The Myth: “There is no consensus” (that humans cause global warming)
The Answer: “97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.”
And – here’s the bit that you’re glossing over – that answer is a hot link to a comprehensive detailing of that response, with references. This is the link in case you can’t click it:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
It’s not just a one line answer, and neither are any of the other ‘one line answers’ that you are attempting to dismiss. Now, you either know this and are being disingenuous for the purposes of making yourself sound authoritative here, or you haven’t bothered to follow the links.
Why do you insist on dwelling upon an SkS reference that doesn’t seriously address the question I asked?
I’m looking for direct empirical evidence, with references, supporting an influential catastrophic theory. That’s all. Nothing more. Nothing less. Why is that so hard to understand?
Then I want to review it and then discuss the veracity and significance of the evidence.
If you have such evidence from the real world, I’m all ears. If not, no problem. It’s no big deal. I won’t fault anyone for things they do not know.
I just asked a question.
Why do you insist on saying things like ‘it doesn’t seriously address the question’ you asked? Is that for the benefit of other people reading who might take your words at face value? The information on the SS page does – seriously – address all the major challenges of climate change denialists.
You were the one who put up a bunch of ‘bullets’ there; the idea that global warming is not caused by humans is one of the challenges you offered to be taken down. Specifically:
“#3 The increase in earth’s atmospheric CO2 is human-caused”
I took up that offer, and I’m showing you a link to information that comprehensively addresses that ‘bullet’. It contains direct, empirical evidence from actual trained scientific specialists in the climate science field that global warming is real, and caused by humans.
Every single one of your ‘bullets’ – which I asume are pertinent to your question (otherwise I’m not sure why you raised them in the first place) – is addressed to the same level of depth on the SS page and within its links. But seriously, I’m not going to hand-hold you all the way through it. If you can’t be bothered to look at one link that addresses just one of the issues you raised, you’re certainly not interested in any kind of facts.
Complaining that ‘you’re not answering my question’ is another tactic of idiologues. You make it sound like you’ve got a single, simple, question when in fact it’s not. By posing it in this way, you’re able to easily appear to take the high ground – as you have done – by whining that ‘no-one will answer my question’. You wanted to know what all this has to do with creationists and homeopaths? They do the exact same thing.
It was you who raised the claim that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. Tell me you didn’t. Let’s concentrate on that one single claim of yours and see if that one flies. On that claim, all else is predicated.
Oh… I didn’t actually think you were serious with your consensus previous answer. You see, I asked for real climate data, not real opinion.
But since you were serious, I’ll tell you what’s wrong with your #3 reaction. OPINION IS NOT SCIENCE!
The bottom line is that if consensus opinion defined truth we’d all still believe the earth is flat and that earth, air, fire and water were the only four elements.
You do realize that #3 is just a statement of fact, don’t you?
Your mission, Mr. Phelps, should you chose to accept it, is to correlate #3 to CAGW theory. As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be killed or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of you actions. 😉
Oh man, you really do play the game don’t you. You love to latch onto words and make them the focal part of your argument, while sidestepping any relevance.
Yes, that 97% of trained experts is expressing an opinion. An opinion based on lifetimes of research and mountains of data. Evidence, in fact. Here, you’ve employed another tactic of the ideologue: take one concept and make it appear equal to another concept by sleight of hand. The opinions of these highly skilled scientists on this subject are not equivalent to the opinions of a bus driver, or a geologist, or me, or you.
Let me put it another way: if you were packing a parachute to make a jump would you take the opinion of a guy who’d done it a hundred times and who was an expert in the field, or the opinion of a guy who once read a Batman comic with a parachuting scene?
But I’m forgetting – the opinion part is irrelevant detour that you created in an attempt to drive the argument off the road again.
Let’s get back on topic: since you are unable to click on links on SS site for some reason, here’s the actual evidence from which those 97% of experts form their opinion.
https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=125
There are a lot of other links there. You have to click on them to find the comprehensive, referenced evidence (which includes all the IPCC reports).
Since it is becoming plain that I *do* need to hand-hold you through the site, following from that evidence, here’s a further link that ties in that evidence to address your non-scientific *opinion* that the situation is not catastrophic.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
It occurs to me if you really, genuinely wanted to get proper information about your ‘question’, you’d have already done all this, rather than attempting to give the impression to others reading that the SS site is full of one line retorts and valueless opinions, in contrast to the immaculately comprehensive data trove that it is.
In logical argument, we call this ‘poisoning the well’. You can pour that cyanide right in there pal, but anyone reading here can easily go check the site to get the measure of yor duplicity.
I have one and only one goal:
I want to see the physical evidence that proves that all the alarmism swirling around climate science is justified. That’s my “game”.
Once again, what you provided is NOT physical evidence. It’s a request for me to do your research for you and then convince myself you are right. Sorry, that’s not how things work.
The way it works is you commit yourself to an actual piece of data, share it with me and I react to it.
Ref 1:
https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=125
I can sum this reference up with one word: RUBBISH!
If there is real physical data hidden in there then dig it out and show me, then I’ll react to the physical evidence.
Articles like “Republicans Against Science”, “Half the truth on emissions” and
“Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?” are not useful and a waste of time.
I’m unsure you understand what the term “physical evidence” means. It’s data that directly supports the CAGW theory. Ref 1 does NOT do that.
Btw, I’ve reviewed that reference before and read a number of the references. It hasn’t improved since my last review.
Ref 2:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
Why do you go back to the 2007 AR4 report for anything? Don’t you know that AR5 came out in late 2013?
Worse yet, you are referencing the Working Group II report, not Working Group I.
What matters for purposes of this discussion is the Working Group I report on the physical evidence supporting CAGW theory and it’s Summary for Policymakers .
I’ll deal with Working Group II and the other groups assertions after I’m convinced that the physical evidence is compelling.
Are you going to provide real physical evidence in support of CAGW theory, or just keep feeding me gibberish?
(Should you chose to accept this less snarky confrontational, more useful response, then get rid of the first one and get rid of this first line… thanks! )
I have one and only one goal:
I would like to see the physical evidence that proves that the catastophic alarmism swirling around climate science is justified.
Humans are having some impact on climate change. No doubt about it. AGW theory does have some support in physics and data. At issue is just how much. At issue is what real effects are happening. At issue is what is a realistic cost/benefit analysis.
The physical evidence I’ve seen so far in support of CAGW theory is weak. In my judgement, it does not justify the enormous costs to fix a CO2 issue that may not be a problem at all.
My plea is this:
Reference specific physical data supporting CAGW theory from your references or elswhere, share it with me and I’ll react to it.
No one, including scientists, is omnipotent. Nobody knows all the answers.
A discussion of the facts, I believe, will be enlightening for everyone. A discussion will put the current hysteria over climate change into proper perspective.
With all due respect, the two references you supplied come up short for me.
Here are some reasons…
Ref 1:
https://skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=125
The reference contains many articles, that’s not the problem. What is problematic is the paucity of physics they contain. Most of the articles are old and out of date.
I need help. If there is real physical data hidden in there proving the CAGW hypothesis, I can’t find it.
Articles like “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”, “Republicans Against Science”, “The Tobacco Strategy”, “Common myths about climate change” and “Half the truth on emissions” are not particularly useful.
It’s hard for me to separate the wheat from the chaff. What matters is the physics behind CAGW theory. That’s what I’m trying to get folks to drill down to.
I’ve reviewed that reference before and read a number of the articles.
I’ll be willing to further evaluate any one or more of the articles that you identify as strong physical support for CAGW theory. Just tell me which are.
Ref 2:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm
This article contains a table from the IPCC’s AR4 Working Group II report that came out in 2007. AR4 was superceded by AR5 that came out in December 2013. It is outdated, too.
Working Group II doesn’t deal with the physics and science behind climate change. It’s only becomes meaningful after the physics is established. That’s why the Working Group I report, “The Physical Science Basis”, is always the first to come out.
What matters for purposes of this discussion is the Working Group I report and it’s important Summary for Policymakers.
>>Reference specific physical data supporting CAGW theory from your references or elswhere, share it with me and I’ll react to it.<>No one, including scientists, is omnipotent. Nobody knows all the answers<<
That is exactly true. But people with expert training in complex fields of knowledge know more about the answers to questions in those areas of expertise than you or I. Your decision not to trust the findings of these people is, as I have said earlier, predicated merely on opinion – unless you yourself are a climate science professional with expertise in these fields, and have chosen not to disclose that fact. If you do not trust the great majority of climate experts, then there are only two logical possibilities: you somehow are smarter and more knowledgeable in their own field than they are, OR you think there's some weird conspiracy involving a shitload of climate experts to hoodwink the world. Both of those possibilities come up short for me.
For some reason the engine collapsed the first part of my reply:
>Reference specific physical data supporting CAGW theory from your references or elswhere, share it with me and I’ll react to it.<
As I believe I said early on in the thread, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a point-by-point bashdown with you on this. Take that as a 'win' if you like, I really don't care. I won't argue this way for the same reason I won't do it with creationists: it's exhausting and ultimately futile because no matter what actual facts you throw at them they'll rope some new cow into the rodeo just to keep it going.
This is the only discussion I ever have where I fervently hope I'm wrong. If you're right, then great – I look like a prat and the world and humanity sails on through. But if you're wrong, the stakes are rather different.
Wat you call perfectly reasonable questions aren’t as obviously reasonable as you suggest AZ. Your first comment in this post was a direct denial of climate change, and I know damned well from your own site that and previous discussions that you are familiar with the subject. So, why do you post a start from scratch question here? Countless scientists have outlined the evidence many times, but you ask the question here as though you’ve never heard the case before, or as though you’ve already dismissed the work of all those scientists. But we here are supposed to overcome that? This is a run-around, we’ve all done plenty of times. But the issue doesn’t stand or fall on a pissing contest in the comments section of a blog, and I for one don’t particularly feel like answering a question that I know wasn’t asked in good faith to begin with.
I’m not surprised. I’ve walked this road a million times.
Professor Wall, my first statement said “Cthulhu can rest easy. Climate data doesn’t appear to indicate he’ll have to eat anyone anytime soon.”
That doesn’t deny anything. It’s just a statement of current climate realities.
I’ll explain for your readers…
Earth has experienced a mild increase of 1.1 degrees C since 1880. Human’s have added a single CO2 atom to 10,000 atoms of earth atmosphere since the start of the industrial age.
Earth’s temperature increase has been in stair step increments since 1880 with intervening declines, the last decline ended in the late 1970s. The CO2 increase since the late 1950s has been slightly exponential, not stair step.
Ice core samples covering the last 800,000 years shows that, generally speaking, temperature is the primary driver of CO2 change, not the other way around. When temperature increases, it drags CO2 up with it. When temperature decreases, it drags CO2 down with it.
During the Roman Warm Period, earth’s temperature was higher than it is today. Earth has been in a general warming phase since the Little Ice Age in the 17th century.
Earth’s temperature profile does not correlate at all well with earth’s CO2 profile since the satellite era.
Most revealing of all is that CO2 today is increasing at it’s fastest pace ever. 25% of all human CO2 has been added since the turn of the century.
CO2 is increasing at a slightly exponential rate. Yet temperature has barely changed since the turn of the century. It should be rising at an exponential rate, too, but is not.
That being the case, it’s very unclear what warming effect the human-caused increase in earth’s CO2 will have in the complex earth system. Everyone agrees, it’s a complicated business.
What we observe today is in keeping with fluctuations in earth’s climate that have been happening throughout the entire Holocene, about 11,500 years.
Earth’s temperature has been wobbling slightly up and down throughout the Holocene.
Put it all together and it says that Cthulhu doesn’t have much to worry about at the moment.
However, we are in the midst of an interglacial warming period (the Holocene). When it ends we will fall back into another ice age, assuming overpopulation and man raping the land doesn’t destroy the planet first.
Perhaps Cthulhu is thinking about cold. Fluctuations between ice age and interglacial warming period is a pattern that has been repeating over and over again for the last two million years.
Cthulhu is surely aware of that.
Note:
The answer to your other comments is simple. Climate change is not settled science. Science is never settled. Never has been. Never will be. Climate science, like all other sciences, needs periodic review.
That’s why it’s important to back up and start the discussion from scratch.
Haha! That was a nice slam right there!
AZ,
1) Your summary statement conclusions about the issue were indeed intended as a denial of my own post. That you regard it as an accurate statements does not change this fact. This in itself is not a problem, but if you are going to be dishonest about (i.e. denying the denial), then the prospects for that discussion (starting from scratch or otherwise) are pretty damned dim. I deny things other people say all the time. It’s not a problem, but I own up to it when I do. You ought to do the same.
As to the rest of your account, I’m not interested in playing whackamole here with your account. Others may do so if they wish.
You say science is never settled. If you can please tell me where I said the science was settled, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I shall regard it as a straw man.
As to needing periodic review, I agree. These kind of polemics are NOT periodic review. As to starting from scratch, I did not ask you why the topic should be discussed from scratch. I asked you why you would field a start from scratch question when we both know damned well you have already taken a stand on the issue. Sealions are interesting animals, but sealioning is a terrible debate tactic.
Do you recall how long it took to establish the dangers of smoking? For decades, people who knew very well the dangers of tobacco continued to work the issue up one side and down the other. This was not dialogue; it was simply a rear-guard action by an industry unwilling to part with its profits. The persistent effort to dismiss current consensus and reboot popular debate from scratch is little different. Far from an effort to keep the scientists working on climate change honest, it is an effort to keep their work from having any major impact on global politics.
Fair enough criticism, professor.
I promise to own up to my own errors. I’ve been wrong before and no doubt will be wrong again.
You did not say the science was settled. I apologize for implying you did.
I’m interested in the same thing you are… truth in science and faith in practicing scientists. Climate change is a serious problem. Research in it should never, ever cease. Research based solutions are needed and crucial, especially up in your neighborhood.
Skeptical research should be acceptable, too, even encouraged, as a part of the overall effort, but it’s discouraged and blackballed.
The null hypothesis is one of the most useful tools in science. It should be applied in climate science as well.
I don’t want to be confrontational. But, if you will, tell me what I am denying?
It can’t be that I deny AGW theory. I don’t. It’s very fruitful for understanding earth’s climate system. Please identify a specific example or examples of denial. In my view, disagreeing with a consensus view is not denial. It’s healthy skepticism.
I don’t want to get into an argument about semantics and pretty sure you don’t either.
I’d like to get back to the actual data and physics that backs up CAGW theory.
Excellent thoughtful and thought-provoking post, my friend! We are all guilty and we must all be a part of the solution. But … I am not sure how that reconciles with our human frailties, the desire to keep the heating at a comfortable temperature in the winter, to jump in the car and make a quick trip to the grocery for the ingredient we need to make supper, to take an extra long shower after a hard day. And there are so many life changes we all need to make. But the bottom line is we have used & abused our planet, our home, for far too long, and if we don’t all do our part to start fixing things now, our grandchildren may have no home. Thanks for this post!
I share all your worries and thoughts about the complexity and consequences of disregarding the health of our planet. “Evil” is about right when the lives of hundreds of millions are at stake. It’s shocking to me that those who deny climate change believe they will somehow be immune to the social devastation to come.
A question. Can anyone please, PLEASE explain to me what credible evidence supports a catastrophic view of human-caused climate change?
Great post, and thanks for following my blog. Yours looks fascinating, so I will be following you as well.
But – I thought we elected Cthulu…?
Good point. Ignorance chooses myth over science to explain what’s misunderstood.
That, of all things you’ve said above, is true. But pretending you’re on the side of science is again disingenuous. The science overwhelmingly supports human-induced catastrophic climate change. You’re on the side of ‘opinion’ – unless you’re a qualified expert, with climate science credentials. In which case I will defer to your greater wisdom.
I admit to wasting my time reading that back and forth from the denier of the science and the other commenter. What it boils down to is a loss of faith in those we used to trust. That includes scientists and it includes each other. We don’t trust each other and don’t give each other the benefit of the doubt.
We used to trust that scientists were merely out to uncover the truth. We didn’t expect them to know everything, but when nearly all of them came to agreement on a given subject, we believed them. And then, if there was a big shakeup with new evidence and scientists changed their minds on something, we gave them the benefit of the doubt and rolled with it.
Not much has changed in science. Its practitioners still go out and try to uncover the truth. They still try to stay away from politics, and they are still subject to having to write grants for money to do their research. But things have changed in the public. Now scientists are faced with a public who seems to care more about themselves than the search for truth.
It’s only about whose side you’re on and how I’m going to support my desired identity by choosing which side I’m on, which tribe I belong to. Then I’ll go on the internet and proclaim that identity in order to garner some sort of imagined “cred”. In the meantime I’ll trash the motives of scientists and anybody foolish enough to keep believing what they do. I’ll try to make readers of my comments believe that I know more than the scientists.
But the bottom line is this: If more than 90% of scientists agree with the big picture aspects of human-caused global warming, if they are all on the same page, then non-scientists, you and I, have the information we need on the subject. We can neglect to care, that’s normal. But pretending we can disagree on the science makes absolutely no sense. It’s arrogant and stupid. They are the scientists and we are not. They do not tell us that they can do our jobs better than we can, so why try to tell them the same thing? It’s nutty.
I don’t think it’s about loss of trust or benefit of the doubt. People have really never trusted science because it tells them the truth. And the truth is often something they don’t really want to hear. From the moment Galileo uttered ‘E pur si muove’ science has been offensive to ‘common sense’ and public opinion.
The current problem stems from a situation in which the science is entering fields that are beyond the understanding of most people. These fields involve chaotic systems and complex dynamics, vastly counter-intuitive areas that require a particular kind of knowledge that is very alien to anyone who thinks in simple black & white ‘gut feeling’ terms. We do need to trust the experts, but people are inherently afraid of those who are more informed than themselves (witness the conspiracy theories that need to be invoked to explain exactly *why* these expert scientists are all in accord about the perils we face).
Mix this problem in with the powerful vested interests and vast political influence of the fossil fuel industry, and there is a formidable negative pressure against the science. It has indeed become, as you say, a war of opinion. But science doesn’t give a flying fuck about opinion.
E pur si muove.
The biggest monkey wrench in CAGW theory was “The Pause”.
This caused a great problem for CAGW theory in the early 2000s because CO2 is rising slightly exponentially, but temperature was not rising.
That is inconsistent with CAGW theory.
That problem was suddenly erased from existence by Karl et. al in this famous 2015 paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789
Karl et. al erased “The Pause” by adjusting ocean temperatures upward. He did NOT use ARGO data, the most accurate ocean data we have. for his most important temperature recent rise.
Since then, papers started to appear in the scientific literature that fail to support Karl et. al results.
Here is a 2016 paper that suggests that “The Pause” still exists on land after all:
“Spatiotemporal Divergence of the Warming Hiatus over Land Based on Different Definitions of Mean Temperature”
– Chunlüe Zhou & Kaicun Wang, Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 31789, 7/21/2016
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31789
“Scientific Results” is a publication of Nature, the very same science organization that published the Karl paper.
Among it’s conclusions are:
“This study reviews the warming hiatus and identifies the key factors determining the spatial pattern of the warming hiatus. The warming hiatus over land is more notable in the US, Canada and the mid-latitudes of Eurasia and is especially evident in winter.”
More important it claims CMIP5 models developed by the IPCC are flawed:
“… because modelers do not use the true monthly mean temperature to evaluate their models, it is unclear whether climate models can reconstruct the recent warming hiatus itself.”
Clearly, ocean temperatures can’t be going up without dragging land surface temperatures up with them.
Oceans contain 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere does and covers 70% of earth’s surface.
Anyone care to explain the discrepancy?
A few days ago, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a very prestigious U.S. science journal, published this peer-reviewed paper:
“Crop-damaging temperatures increase suicide rates in India”
– Tamma Carlton, PNAS, 7/25/2017
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/25/1701354114
In the article, the author concludes over the last 30 years that 59,300 suicides in India were caused by climate change, primarily because of rising temperatures.
Tamma Carlton is an economics grad student at UC Berkeley.
The author’s hypothesis is that temperature increase is causing crop failures that trigger suicides.
Carlton says “I demonstrate that fluctuations in climate, particularly temperature, significantly influence suicide rates.” She adds, “This effect occurs only during India’s agricultural growing season, when heat also lowers crop yields.”
Perhaps depressed people are choosing to commit suicide over dying of starvation.
Carlton’s suicide baseline temperature is 20C. For those not used to temps expressed in Celsius, 20C is 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
The author says each degree Celsius increase above 20C causes 70 suicides due to crop failures.
The problem. India’s crops are NOT failing…
Consider this data:
https://i0.wp.com/3.bp.blogspot.com/_EZMGVwURo3M/S-DtaieCf6I/AAAAAAAACnk/vsV0yFNlmOs/s400/Indian+Rice,+Wheat,+and+Corn+Production+(three+biggest+crops)-742694.PNG?zoom=2
India’s production of its three main agricultural crops has doubled in the last 30 years. According to the source article for this data, the increase is attributed to the increased use of fertilizers in India.
A business journal specializing in international trade, exports and imports published this revealing 2014 article about India’s agricultural exports:
“India’s agri exports fastest growing in the world: USDA”
– Bidhu Bhushan Palo, The Dollar Business, October/2014
https://www.thedollarbusiness.com/news/indias-agri-exports-fastest-growing-in-the-world-usda/6626
As of late 2014, not only was India the worlds fastest growing exporter of agricultural goods, but it had increased exports 8-fold since the year 2000.
In India, crop production has doubled since 1980 and agri exports have increased 8-fold since the year 2000!
Anyone care to explain how this data, from two different sources, is consistent with the above author’s statement that crop failures in India over the last 30 years have increased?
An update on India’s foodgrain production. The Times of India reports that 2016-2017 set an all-time high for foodgrain production:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/govt-revises-foodgrain-output-to-record-275-68-million-tonnes/articleshow/60090001.cms
Kinda puts another dent in Tamma Carlton’s theory that decreased food production due to global warming is triggering more suicides in India during the growing season.
Fascinating thoughts here. The sad part is the hypocrisy of the “champions” of the battle against Cthulhu. The Gores and kindred who still live like kings exempt from carbon emission limits. (Being able to afford to buy “carbon credits” is just an absurdity that reinforces my impression of their privileged exemption.)
As for someone like yourself who genuinely questions how they might be able to live, cut off from the plastics, etc. that are integral to civilization… you make a good case. What difference can we, as individuals, make..?
Reblogged this on msamba.
https://postmansam.wordpress.com/2017/09/24/the-real-effects-of-climate-change/ help me save the world
Love your work
Pingback: A Very Soylent Spoiler Aert | northierthanthou