high water?

[walt]

I would think those predictions would be easy to find references for especially if they are abundant. I think you can hear this sort of info on AM radio where there is plenty of deception going on. If its real, you should be able to find references on the internet. Even a tabloid mag?

The evidence is abundant, e.g., the prediction polar ice caps would disappear by 2000. That sea level would rise 3meters by 2010. We get treated to wild speculation disguised as scientific modeling, much of which has been shown to be based on biased data disguised as ‘evidence’. We can’t even predict to tomorrow’s weather with 100% certainty, never mind that decades in the future.

The climate is changing, of that we are certain. We have not yet attributed how much humans contribute to that change.

Without references, backing up what you say (like above), these threads turn into garbage. Find your references and I will dig up the IPCC predictions (and show references of where the info came from)

 

[dlochner]

The climate is changing, of that we are certain. We have not yet attributed how much humans contribute to that change.

Since we agree on this point, we have to think about the kind of errors we want to make. When we look at types of errors, the choice becomes clear.

If human activity is involved in climate change and we do nothing to mitigate the effects of our activity, then the consequences are dire.

Conversely, if human activity is not involved in climate change and we take efforts to mitigate the effects of our activity, not much bad happens. We end up with fuel efficient vehicles, renewable energy sources, energy efficient buildings, more forests and better agricultural practices, among other benefits.

Which choice makes the most sense? I know which error I want to make.

 

[TomY]

Absent knowing how, how much and if anthropogenic climate change exists, we have no reason to limit human activity.

Maybe we should tell that to the people in New Delhi India, chocking on the air they breath today?

I never could understand this side of the denier argument to make no change.

We all benefit from the cleaner air and water that comes from lowering our carbon emissions. Why would any ideology deny that?

 

[walt]

Those two charts together tell me there is no correlation between our activities as an industrialized people and the warming trend. Why? Because the central thesis of Global Warming is the incease of CO2 in our atmosphere that causes the Earth to retain more of the Sun's energy than previously. Therefore, a chart that proves Man's influence on the temperature of the Earth through a "greenhouse" gas should show a perfect correlation with the Sun's energy output. Instead, I see an inexplicable rise in the Earth's temperature with no cyclic relationship to the Sun's cycles and no cyclic relationship to any human activity that I'm aware of.

Study the way green house gas works. Remember that the satellite solar data plot is what is coming in from the sun. Its a satellite measurement looking at the sun (and satellites are the best way to measure this). With the way green house gas works, you expect to see exactly what we have seen and that is rising temperatures with a correlation to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. There isnt a significant correlation with the rising temperature and the solar power that is coming from the sun. However.. and we are not ready for a link showing this yet, with the greenhouse gas model, we would expect to see a decrease in IR radiation escaping back out into space especially at the green house gas emission and absorption wavelength as the greenhouse gas concentration increased. Ask.. I have a link but best to understand why first.

In keeping with the reference (although this is just basic science) I found some links with google

The Greenhouse Effect | Climate Central

The greenhouse effect happens when sunlight warms the Earth, and molecules in the atmosphere intercept the resulting heat before it can escape to space.

www.climatecentral.org

What Is the Greenhouse Effect?

What exactly is the greenhouse effect and what does it have to do with climate change?

www.climaterealityproject.org

It then gets more complicated because there are feedback mechanisms and water vapor is also a green house gas. I have more links... if we get that far.

 

[dlochner]

Therefore, a chart that proves Man's influence on the temperature of the Earth through a "greenhouse" gas should show a perfect correlation with the Sun's energy output.

The evidence is abundant, e.g., the prediction polar ice caps would disappear by 2000. That sea level would rise 3meters by 2010. We get treated to wild speculation disguised as scientific modeling, much of which has been shown to be based on biased data disguised as ‘evidence’. We can’t even predict to tomorrow’s weather with 100% certainty, never mind that decades in the future.

These 2 quotes are addressing essentially the same issue, the relationship between 2 factors and the ability to predict the future. So, I'll address them both in one fell swoop.

Waiting to find a perfect correlation between 2 factors will be a long wait. A perfect correlation means that both factors vary exactly the same way in every instance. By definition, correlation range from -1 to 1, with a 1 or -1 being a "perfect" correlation. A correlation of 0 means there is no relationship and a negative correlation means there is an inverse relationship, as one value goes up, the other goes down. A positive correlation means as one value goes up, the other goes up.

So why do we have a long wait for a perfect correlation? Two factors, measurement error and random events. All measurement entails error, different fields give it different names, tolerance, standard error of measurement, as 2 that come quickly to mind. When 2 factors are measured, the error in each measure compounds with the other to increase uncertainty. As science and technology advance, measurements become more precise, however, error remains.

Which brings us to modeling. A simple model used to predict a future event from a current event is Y = mX + B, where X is the predictor variable, m is the correlation between X and Y, and B is the error term or how much slop is in the measurements, and Y is the value being predicted. I use this equation almost daily when I look at a child's IQ and try to predict the child's academic achievement. More complex models add more predictor variables and different relationships between variables; are the relationships linear? are they geometric? are they additive or subtractive. The goal of any predictive model is to be as accurate as possible.

Models evolve over time as new factors are added, as improved measurement technology improves data quality, as computational power increases, as more data is available. As models evolve the predictions they make evolve and become more accurate. That's why climate change models and predictions today are different from those made 30 or 40 years ago. The models in use today, will seem archaic and uniformed 30 or 40 years from now.

We can see this with the daily weather forecasts, years ago the forecast was something like it might rain tomorrow afternoon. Now the forecasts are quite accurate, it will start raining at 1:00 PM tomorrow, and it does.

It makes little sense to me to base criticism of a phenomena (in this case climate change) on predictions made 30 or 40 years ago. As the models and understanding of the atmospheric dynamics has improved, so has the accuracy of the predictions, more extreme weather, warmer temperatures, arctic ice melting, lobsters moving north to colder water. The trends are clear, though measurement error and random events can sometimes obscure those trends.

 

[Will Gilmore]

Let me add my voice to Don's. Of course we can remember the dire warnings about the catastrophic effects of climate change. There have been predictions of massive drought that could lead to mass migrations, of people, thus also to famine and war, increases in volcanic and seismic activities, monster storms. (No citable source, if you didn't hear the same news reports I did 10, 20 even 30 years ago, I can't help). I specifically remember, about 15 years ago, a report on NPR that predicted the disappearance of maple trees from the US, leaving only Canada as a viable habitat. That was suppose to happen by now.
That isn't to say there haven't been predictions that didn'ts come true. The global average temperature has increased by the minimum range of .5 deg Celsius since it was predicted in 2002. The weather has produced some catastrophic storms made even more catastrophic by their timing and location. The ocean does appear to be rising, just not quite too some of the more outrageous prophesies.

There is no denying the changes and it is absurd to argue that we don't bear some responsibility for it. We, also as the only technological species on our planet, bear full and complete responsibility for maintaining its habitability. There is no one else to do it.
As sailors, we are both particularly interested and, I feel, have the flexibility to deal.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Since we agree on this point, we have to think about the kind of errors we want to make. When we look at types of errors, the choice becomes clear.

If human activity is involved in climate change and we do nothing to mitigate the effects of our activity, then the consequences are dire.

Conversely, if human activity is not involved in climate change and we take efforts to mitigate the effects of our activity, not much bad happens. We end up with fuel efficient vehicles, renewable energy sources, energy efficient buildings, more forests and better agricultural practices, among other benefits.

Which choice makes the most sense? I know which error I want to make.

Unfortunately, the issue isn't one of a clear and simple choice. Rather, it is between:
1. paying an enormous amount of money to alter our lifestyle to fix a problem which may not exist [i.e., man made warming], or
2. paying that same amount to apply a feel-good solution to a problem over which we have little if any control.

Of course there is a third scenario you seem to advocate being

3. paying said sum of money to fix a "clear and present danger" over which we have control which is 'fixable', however, no one has yet shown this to be the case.

As an environmental engineer and climate scientist, I'm advocating an objective assessment before designing a solution to an ill-defined problem. Some might call that common sense, however, commons sense seems to have little influence over what most people look at through very colored and often opaque political lenses.


All I suggest is before ringing the alarm bells, it would be prudent to know if we can affect a solution.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Maybe we should tell that to the people in New Delhi India, chocking on the air they breath today?

I never could understand this side of the denier argument to make no change.

We all benefit from the cleaner air and water that comes from lowering our carbon emissions. Why would any ideology deny that?

Labeling an argument with which you disagree isn't helpful in convincing anyone nor does it validate your perspective.

No one is "denying" climate change, however, I and others think it is reasonable to understand what fraction of it is man made and whether or not that fraction is significant enough to warrant the reaction some suggest is required.

 

[dlochner]

Unfortunately, the issue isn't one of a clear and simple choice. Rather, it is between:
1. paying an enormous amount of money to alter our lifestyle to fix a problem which may not exist [i.e., man made warming], or
2. paying that same amount to apply a feel-good solution to a problem over which we have little if any control.

Of course there is a third scenario you seem to advocate being

3. paying said sum of money to fix a "clear and present danger" over which we have control which is 'fixable', however, no one has yet shown this to be the case.

As an environmental engineer and climate scientist, I'm advocating an objective assessment before designing a solution to an ill-defined problem. Some might call that common sense, however, commons sense seems to have little influence over what most people look at through very colored and often opaque political lenses.


All I suggest is before ringing the alarm bells, it would be prudent to know if we can affect a solution.

Don, you must be using some different math than I am. And we know the solution, it is 2 pronged, reduce green house gas emissions and become more energy efficient and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

So, how is it more expensive to drive a vehicle that gets 35 miles a gallon than to drive a vehicle that gets 15 miles per gallon?

How is it more expensive to better insulate buildings to they take less energy to heat or cool? Or design them to take advantage of solar energy to heat or natural wind patterns to cool?

How is it more expensive to use farming techniques, like no-till planting to keep carbon in the ground and to reduce the amount of tractor time in the field?

Why are aircraft manufacturers designing and building more energy efficient aircraft if it wasn't economical for them to do so?

Likewise, why is the shipping industry looking for ways to increase the energy efficiency of ships at sea?

Independent of whether human activity has any effect on climate change, how are any of the above bad ideas? Or excessively expensive in the long run?

 

[DArcy]

Unfortunately, the issue isn't one of a clear and simple choice. Rather, it is between:
1. paying an enormous amount of money to alter our lifestyle to fix a problem which may not exist [i.e., man made warming], or
2. paying that same amount to apply a feel-good solution to a problem over which we have little if any control.

Don, you lost me with this argument. In general, it is cheaper to reduce your carbon footprint. There are some cases, such as solar electricity, which don't save money but don't really cost any more in the long run. As Dave points out, being frugal goes hand in hand with reducing waste. In some cases, like cars, it is just cheaper all around. In other cases you may need to plan a bit more, and in some cases pay up front, but in the long run you will usually save money while reducing waste and emissions. Compare sailing to power boats; we pay up front for sails but in the long run use a lot less fossil fuels by harnessing free energy from the wind. Several years ago I was on a 30 something foot Fountain. In a year, the owner spent about the same amount of money on fuel as it would cost for a new sail for my boat. In the long run, I pay less for the same amount of use from our boats while using less energy.

 

[shemandr]

Dismantling the world wide economy, is what is too expensive. Such action would hurt developed countries but would DEVASTATE developing economies. The widespread spread of poverty, perhaps famine, civil un-rest would be a very high price humanity would suffer. That is why it's so crucial to discover the effectiveness of the suggested measures to correct the trend. If the changes are evolutionary then the solution can be and it is not a crisis. I am all for common sense measures to reduce our impact but if you want to exacerbate human misery I think you'd better be damn sure it is necessary and effective. We are not living a global "Lord of the Flies" and I'm not taking a 16 year old's word for it.

 

[DArcy]

Don't bring the 16 year old (she who shall not be named) into this discussion. The sky isn't falling quite yet. Developing countries are the ones that will benefit the most from changes to improve our environment. From the very undeveloped areas bringing in solar and wind power to areas that had no electricity before because they couldn't afford the infrastructure, to reduction of smog and pollution in developing industrial areas which greatly reduce the associate environmental illnesses. I cannot say I agree with all "environmental" initiatives. In Canada we have a carbon tax which is levied on carbon emitting fuels. This tax is just an added financial incentive to reduce emissions which has been shown to be effective in some locations, such as Sweden, but is an added cost which could support Don's argument. It is fairly easy to offset this by simply improving efficiency of fuel use. Tom Y gave the example of a heat pump which operates up to 300% efficiency, or Dave's examples of buying a more fuel efficient vehicle and insulating your home.
It is not necessary to "dismantle the world economy" but some tweaks are needed.

Edit: I should point out that the carbon tax in Canada is being offset by rebates which are intended to make it tax neutral. It just provides incentive to reduce carbon emissions which, if you take it to an extreme, could actually reduce overall taxes.

 

[Rick486]

Dismantling the world wide economy, is what is too expensive. Such action would hurt developed countries but would DEVASTATE developing economies. The widespread spread of poverty, perhaps famine, civil un-rest would be a very high price humanity would suffer. That is why it's so crucial to discover the effectiveness of the suggested measures to correct the trend. If the changes are evolutionary then the solution can be and it is not a crisis. I am all for common sense measures to reduce our impact but if you want to exacerbate human misery I think you'd better be damn sure it is necessary and effective. We are not living a global "Lord of the Flies" and I'm not taking a 16 year old's word for it.

Yes to all Andrew.
And importantly, any "solution" to any "problem" must be a free market solution, as opposed to a political solution. The UN has a tendency to regard the United States as a huge piggy bank from which funds may flow to cure the world's problems. This route immediately rings the political bell and the opposing parties engage. The political aspects are what seriously damaged the scientific argument over 20 years ago when unnamed high profile politicians went off on this issue (to their own benefit) and the battle lines were drawn. Unfortunately, the climate change issue grew into an industry with untold numbers of individuals (including the related scientific community) earning their livings in pursuit of the "data", and the "solution". Reading some of the posts above it would seem that only people my age remember that this debate began at least 30 years ago and some steps have already been taken, mainly on government funding, a large percentage of which eventually failed. On previous postings the point was made repeatedly on how reduction of carbon in the environment was a good and cost effective path to follow, as well as potentially helpful to the climate. Well, unless and until that argument can be successfully made so that economic forces drive the United States economy in that direction the political debate will be just that, a debate.

 

[dlochner]

Dismantling the world wide economy, is what is too expensive. Such action would hurt developed countries but would DEVASTATE developing economies. The widespread spread of poverty, perhaps famine, civil un-rest would be a very high price humanity would suffer. That is why it's so crucial to discover the effectiveness of the suggested measures to correct the trend. If the changes are evolutionary then the solution can be and it is not a crisis. I am all for common sense measures to reduce our impact but if you want to exacerbate human misery I think you'd better be damn sure it is necessary and effective. We are not living a global "Lord of the Flies" and I'm not taking a 16 year old's word for it.

Well, I think "dismantling the world economy" is a bit extreme.

Developing countries actually have an advantage that the developed countries don't have. It became evident with the proliferation of smart phones. Many developing countries skipped the copper wire phone connection because it was faster, cheaper, and easier to build a cell phone tower in a village and give everyone access than to put up a bunch of telephone poles and run copper every where.

I suspect the same is true with electricity. After Hurricane Maria deviated Puerto Rico's electrical grid there was a movement to decentralize power distribution by using small scale grids and solar panels. I'm not certain where that stands at the moment.

In the US there is huge antiquated power grid. Dismantling or upgrading that is a significant expense. Adding multiple small solar or wind power stations, i.e., residential roof top solar installs, has its own set of limitations. Many residential grid circuits are not able to handle a large increase of power generated by multiple residential installs in one neighborhood.

To @Don S/V ILLusion's point that the solution is prohibitively expensive, he is right if the only focus is on large scale replacement of the infrastructure, however, there is much we can do on a personal level that contributes to reducing emissions. And with good planning, the power infrastructure can be rebuilt in a more environmentally protective manner.

The state of Hawai'i has gone a long way towards installing reliable and sustainable energy production. In part the movement was a result of the state's generally progressive protection of the island's environment and in part because of the high cost to bring engird (i.e., oil) into the state. There is a model there that is working. No reason it can not be used in other parts of the country and world.

Waiting for the silver bullet, or one right solution, to the problem of a rapidly changing climate is simply waiting for a disaster to happen. There is a lot we all can do that makes both environmental and fiscal sense. As the renewable energy technology develops the cost will decrease and it will develop as long as there is demand for it.

 

[shemandr]

I knew when I posted that I would end up defending it - which is a road I don't really want to go down. Discussion is fine. Trading talking points is a waste of time (Which hasn't happened yet).
It may surprise that I agree with much of post 114. I agree with the cell tower example. I don't think it extends to power very much. However you can make electrons go zippity zip, but you still need to distribute it. Grid. But I will allow that I look forward to the day that every roof shingle is a solar power cell and I don't think it's technologically out of reach. Maybe economically but that can change pretty quickly - especially in a market economy. I'm all in for good planning - as long as the planners are playing straight. Dubious at best. And I think we can move away from fossil fuel but I hope in an evolutionary way and not a revolutionary way. That was the point of my post. If the sky isn't falling, then a too quick move away from fossil fuels will cause drastic and irreversible hardship on billions of people. A very very high price. That is why we need to separate the political use of the "Crisis" from the reality.

 

[dlochner]

@shemander My point was that sometimes it is easier, faster, and cheaper to start from scratch than to re-build. 100 years ago the US had great infrastructure, but not it is aging and in many places, not so great. We need to invest in infrastructure including the electric grid.

On a related note, my wife was just reading an article in the NYT about the absence of bay scallops in Peconic Bay due to the high water temps. Did the water really reach the mid 80s this year? Is that unusual for the bay?

 

[jon hansen]

we all try our best, trying t be locally responsible

 

[shemandr]

I wasn't there but the scallop situation is true. Mid eighties would be unusually high. High seventies wouldn't be unusual. I'll ask around if those temperatures were seen. I would also like to know if there were the all to usual micro-organism blooms this year. Last year was pretty clear.

 

[TomY]

A quote from the article: "Water temperatures reached the mid-80s several times this past summer, according to a U.S. Geological Survey station gathering data in Orient Harbor."

The Baymen’s Nightmare: All the Scallops Are Dead (Published 2019)

There have been lean years in Peconic Bay, on Long Island. But fishermen have never seen a failed harvest like this one.

www.nytimes.com

 

[DayDreamer41]

There are many great observations and statements woven into this conversation and a very interesting read. I don't think anyone could argue the fact that human activity has changed our environment, you have to be blind not to see that, when thinking about this I believe that one of the hardest things to accomplish will be to change the way counties like China and India think about their (and invariably our environment) is managed.
Great strides have been made in North America in understanding and implementing changes to improve our environmental impact, but as developing countries expand, their use of coal (without exhaust treatment) is growing exponentially more than offsetting gains from all other environmentally conscious countries, solve this problem and great strides will be made in solving the overall problem of human impact on the environment.