Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

Yobarnacle, a lot of post are ignored.
Do you know how polluting is to built solar panels, and the number necessary to make a desalination plants working? Do you know the maintenance required for a desalination plants?
Some area doesn't have enough sun.
Probably on certain area a tide powered electrical plan will be possible.
I think the more important is to generate electricity, and then you can run what ever needed.

 

I find this article in the Las Vegas Guardian Express.
I didn't know about these microscopic plastic.
But here it is:

 

Global Warming Slowdown Data Sought in UN Climate Report | BLOOMBERG

 

Tropical ocean key to global warming ‘hiatus’ | NATURE

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

" The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current (1950s) rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature "at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century."(26)


"The computation, like Callendar's, paid no attention to possible changes in water vapor and clouds, and overall was too crude to convince scientists. "It is almost certain," one authority scolded, "that these figures will be subject to many strong revisions."(27) Yet Plass had proved one central point: it was a mistake to dismiss the greenhouse effect with spectroscopic arguments. He warned that climate change could be "a serious problem to future generations" — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. "If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise," he wrote, then it would be "firmly established" that CO2 could cause climate change.(28) "

THIS is the fulcrum of AGW argument, the tipping point, if you will.

All scientists believing or speculating, or hypothesizing that the increase of man made CO2 in the atmosphere COULD (might) cause warming and severe weather, predicate acceptance of this idea on,.. If we predict warming and it warms, then it would be "firmly established" ie: the science is settled.

So the reverse would ALSO be logical?
A hiatus in warming, that nullified their predictions, likewise nullifys their argument man made CO2 CAUSED the warming that stopped happening.

As I pointed out earlier, the argument was/is cyclic and always was.

Cause and Effect needs more than a possible cause and a possible effect, and a weak argument, if we get the effect predicted, then that proves the cause. Wrong.
It too simplemindedly ignores all OTHER possible causes.

I'm interested in the research. I have always been interested in the sea and spent a lifetime on the sea, 44 years to date. All intelligent seamen are interested in weather, I assure you!


More study is definitely needed. Insisting on making disastrous changes in society and politics because of poorly understood climate changes, is ignorant and dangerous.
Unwise!

The best we can do now, today, is treat symptoms, not cure the problem.

In other words, we need to get water to drought areas, or move the people. Evacuate folks from flood areas or build dikes, or put their towns on barges that float up and down with the water level.
Things like this, we CAN do.
The argument against DOING these things is "Do you realize how much that will COST?"

The argument against societal/political upheaval is "Do you realize how many magnitudes MORE expensive THAT would cost?"

 

" Insisting on making disastrous changes in society and politics because of poorly understood climate changes, is ignorant and dangerous."

?????????



Exactly what " disastrous changes in society and politics " have been proposed ?

 

First of all, the very interesting history of climate change studies and research you linked to does a rather thorough job of making a case that it's real - and man-made. You didn't help your cause any by linking to it.... I just had time to skim through it this morning, but I intend to settle down and read it from end to end while I'm off work this coming week.

I'm not sure why you excerpted the passages about Plass and his research and studies in the 1950's. Can you clarify what you think it illustrates?

There's been no real hiatus in global warming. It has slowed unexpectedly lately (as discussed in Imaginary Number's posts), but hasn't stopped or reversed course.

Your claim that the changes we've seen in modern times are due to natural cycles simply doesn't hold up. Past cycles have played out over millenia, not decades. There's no history of cyclical changes on the abrupt time scale we're seeing today..

 

I was referring to my earlier post, that you said "Your supposed circular argument is more of a twisted pretzel; that isn't the way climate change theories developed. And repeatedly calling the data, research and studies that have been done 'speculative' doesn't make them go away."

I chose from the article on the history, which I DID read carefully, the exact cyclic argument in Plass own words.

and ALL the climatologists agree that there has been almost NO warming since 1999 there abouts. It's effectively plateaued.

The argument, being cyclic, was flawed from the beginning.

And since the 'predictions" have failed, the argument turns to dust.

Are we having climate change? Yes. That's not a new phenomenon.

is there anything we can do about it? Probably not, and CERTAINLY not if we don't even UNDERSTAND it!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980
__________________

 

I know ya'll think I'm just a stupid old boat driver!

but I'm VERY experienced and successful at contingency planning, and perceiving the actual problem through the haze of complexity. That's the bulk of my job.
Not bossing people. In fact, I EMPOWER people. I make sure they have the material, tools, time, instructions, skills, and direction, to accomplish THEIR job!

I do have a proven ability to get to the meat of the problem and find solutions.
It's called good judgement. Learned.
Good judgement isn't learned in colleges.
Good judgement comes from experience.
and a LOT of experiences come from BAD judgement!
I'm counciling we don't need MORE experience from governmental BAD judgement.
Good judgement, from experience, dictates DON"T expect the government to be wise or frugal!
Let's fund the research. Let's isolate the problems and find solutions and implement them.

Everybody has a problem solving algorithm whether they ever analyzed it or not.
Unfortunately, most include the steps, find whom to blame and punish them.
That is symptomatic of a POOR problem solver algorithm, because it delays and interferes with finding and addressing the real problem.!
A Better algorithm is to avoid the blame/punishment process altogether. Streamline. Isolate the actual problem, examine possible solutions, select and implement, review degree of resolvement, repeat.

MAN made climate change is finger pointing. It DELAYS finding the REAL problem and solutions. And the cyclic argument is an illogical one whenever it's used.

 

Yob,
Thanks for the link. I've not see such a detailed history of the science of climate change research before. A lot of links to wade through, besides the one page you referenced. I'll interject comments within your post:

As I'm sure you remember, we've touched on this topic many times before. And it is a very important question, but the answer isn't necessarily obvious. As I've said before, I don't think you realize the magnitude of what the costs will be if we continue to generate CO2 at the increasing rate we humans are presently doing. If you care to wade through them, here are some of my posts on the topic of costs, both do-nothing costs as well as various do-something or do-everything costs. Fair warning: I've included posts on your favorite solution -- a carbon tax.

Carbon Tax - A Small Price for a Large Benefit

GDP Cannot Capture the Economics of Climate Change

US Underestimates Costs of Carbon Pollution and Climate Change, Study Finds

Estimating the costs of climate change

9 Facts That Prove Joe Stiglitz Is Right About Climate Change Hurting The Economy

Renewable energy is too expensive

World Economic Forum: Climate Change Curbing Efforts Could Cost $700 Billion A Year

In-Depth Analysis: How A Progressive Carbon Tax Will Fight Climate Change And Stimulate The Economy

In Energy Taxes, Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change

Carbon Tax: How to Deal with a Sagging Economy, Tax Reform, and Climate Change in One Fell Swoop

 

I beg to differ. I believe if you don't understand what causes the problem you will be unlikely to find a cost-effective solution. MAN is most definitely an integral part of the problem.

One big difference between your shipboard problem-solving experience, and our seven-billion-people space-ship-earth problem, is that on a ship there is a captain, and his word is law. During the training phase the captain may be all smiles and fuzzy, but when the $hit-hits-the-fan, it's my (the Captain) way or the highway. Here on earth we have a hard time deciding what to do between a couple of friendly forum members. And the US Congress is a hopeless basket case for getting anything done. What hope is there that we can get the whole world going in a united direction. Probably not much, until the pain of ignoring Global Warming becomes greater than the pain of finding solutions to Global Warming.

 

Condescending drivel.

 

I wasn't putting myself forward as an experienced expert on climate change or solutions to problems resulting from.
I was proffering my credentials as an experienced expert judging, separating what's real and important from the accompanying surfeit of BS!

surfeit
American Heritage Dictionary: sur·feit (sûr'fĭt) pronunciation

v., -feit·ed, -feit·ing, -feits.

v.tr.
To feed or supply to excess, satiety, or disgust.

v.intr. Archaic
To overindulge.

n.

Overindulgence in food or drink.
The result of such overindulgence; satiety or disgust.
An excessive amount.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/surfeit#ixzz2dgI4LcVO

 

Dear Mr. Yobarnacle,

Thank you very much for taking the time to interview with us for the position of EXPERT JUDGE. We appreciate your interest in planet Earth and the job.

I am writing to let you know that we have selected the candidate whom we believe most closely matches the job requirements of the position.

We do appreciate you taking the time to interview with us and encourage you to apply for other openings on planet Earth in the future.

Again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Chief Condescending Drivel Officer,
Department of Floods and Droughts

 

Many years ago, my boss ordered me to take offshore, a crew he had assembled to relieve a mutinous crew on another of our boats.

When we rendezvoused, we boarded, relieved the mutineers (all crew but the captain) and sent them in under house arrest, on the boat I brought out.

Immediately they were away, I started solving the problem, which I knew nothing about until I got aboard.
The mutiny was over the thermostat setting. The captain was old, and the bridge cold. he turned up the heat. the crew turned it down, they were uncomfortably hot.
They refused to let the captain set the thermostat, even with direct orders, so captain called coast guard, and they called the office, and
the office sent me and relief crew.

Were the mutineers guilty? YOU BET!
Was that my problem? Nope.
They had a problem who was going to run the thermostat. That wasn't MY problem either. And I didn't relieve the captain, but took the mates position.
Office told me to relieve the captain if he had gone crazy, but otherwise let him keep his boat, his dignity and treat him with respect.
So what WAS my problem? An engineering problem.
How to get heat to the wheelhouse without cooking the quarters below!

a few minutes with aluminum foil and screwdrivers, blocking vents in the lower decks, we soon had the ENTIRE boat comfortable.

Why couldn't the OTHER crew see that? why didn't the captain?
Because people frequently get confused by the BS.
I DON'T.