20150922 - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - Climate Change - Live Show Chat Thread

[chefist]

I guess ultimately, sure, costs are passed to the consumers in price or opportunity costs. But there is competition. Even now a lot of utilities are switching over to nat gas instead of coal, for example. Or even sometimes wind makes sense. And there is competition and financial strategies in those purchases ("spot" price, different pipelines, different upstream providers, future hedging and contracts, etc.) In some markets you can also choose what electric company you use, so that is competition. Here our power-company is municipality-owned but they still participate in other forms of competition to try to "pass" a reduced-cost to the customer. Other places the utility is a co-op (which, in theory, has even more incentive to pass the least "cost" to the consumer- who is a partial owner.)

My point is it would likely still be cheaper to consumers if the producers and refiners (upstream and midstream) knew what the future costs due to taxes, new regulation, or carbon-trading schemes would be. The problem is the uncertainly which fuels, to pun intended, causes speculation, reduced capital investment in future projects, etc.

The bottleneck and gate keepers are the local utility companies... Try to find an alternative to providing electricity or natural gas to your home or business... 99% if the time there isn't...

The companies you mention are oligopolies...they set the maximum price they know the market will bear and know their limited number of competitors will do the same and not try and under price...

[albrecht]

Just finished last nights show. I enjoyed it immensely but am saddened to see that a lot of people ignore the political side of this issue.  It has affected me enough to whizz on the electric fence by writing this calling the two main camps to task; "settled sciencers" and "deniers". Participation in the groups seem to be highly correlated with ones political views.  The most alarming part is the wacky part of both segments is quite large and not confined to the fringe.

I know that I don't have time to check all of the scientific papers to see if there are any biases in studies.  I think that we have to all assume the scientists know what they are doing and if the preponderance of papers suggest climate change then we must believe these facts.  I do get alarmed when I hear of computer models of the climate.  These models are only as good as the inputs and biases built in the model.   It is concerning because our models of local weather  leave a lot to be desired. I think the climate would be even more complex.  I have heard several models predict catastrophes in the future that weren't borne out.

I think that "settled sciencers" project an air of superiority and launch ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with their viewpoint.  Check back through the this thread if you don't believe me.  Perhaps for most it out of frustration trying to convince the closed-minded, but there is a large element of the superiority complex.

Most of the "deniers" seem to have their heads in the sand.  As I said a preponderance of papers seem to indicate climate change, disputing a few papers on the fringe does not change the findings.  These people do deserve the ad hominem attacks.  I hate any dearly held position that is the result of ignorance or laziness.  These positions must be re-evaluated as new evidence or thoughts are presented.

Now for the third, and I hope largest, camp.  Those of us who realize climate change is real but are not yet convinced that humans are the main cause.  Now before you accuse me of being a bible thumping Christian ( I'm not) or living in the equivalent of the central or southern U.S. (I don't) let me explain.  I have a BS in engineering and an MBA.  I think it safe to say I understand statistics.  Let's look at simple scenario that will illustrate that correlation does not imply causation.  I think we can agree that everyone that has died was      once conceived.  There is perfect correlation (1) between these facts.  Yet it is difficult to argue that the cause of death of everyone was conception.  With the complexities of climate change I think it is difficult to single out humans as the sole or even major cause.  With that said human carbon output is the only thing we can effectively control so all efforts to reduce this should be looked at.

Sorry for the wall of text.  Feel free to attack me if I've pissed you off.  That won't stop me from buying you the beverage of your choice if we ever meet to have a conversation about this.  A world where everyone thought like me
would suck.

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. We also ignore the possible positives of a warmer climate. At least in the northern hemisphere (more crops, melting glaciers mean more water, cheaper/quicking shipping lanes in NW passage, easier access to precious and rare-earth minerals, oil&gas, etc. And we ignore that technology (of various kinds) that can help us adapt to changing climate. The earth has warmed/cooled many times before. To me the "consensus" almost "anthropomorphicizes" the idea of earth, like a Gaia Hypothesis. It is some sentient being that "cares" about us or that we are, somehow, not a part of nature or are "hurting" this entity: earth. I think we over-estimate the power of people. The earth, at times, was a lot hotter, and a lot cooler, when there were no people (or very few of our ancient ancestors.) I reckon if we set off every nuke and biological weapon we held the earth would keep on spinning and in a few billion years there would be some type of life.

So from a purely selfish perspective we should deal with the "warming," if it is happening. But doing so by looking after ourselves. Not cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think the focus on the "warming" takes away attention from some things we can really control- and have a direct, quicker impact on humanity: over-fishing, nuclear waste, heavy metal pollution, bad agricultural practices, recycling, war, etc or focusing on other technological solutions.

If these people really, truly, believed in their theories they would be doing like last night. Having the "warming" conferences over the telephone or by internet video conference. Not flying private jets to exotic locales and to met with a fleet of limousines to go hob-nobbing with  celebrities and politicians; dining of imported fine foods and fine wine. They would try to limit THEIR footprint first. Lead by example.

[AppealPlay]

The archive cut off the bit by Art about "one city, one station at a time...we're coming for you!"

I'm bummed out because I wanted to save that clip.

[albrecht]

The bottleneck and gate keepers are the local utility companies... Try to find an alternative to providing electricity or natural gas to your home or business... 99% if the time there isn't...

The companies you mention are oligopolies...they set the maximum price they know the market will bear and know their limited number of competitors will do the same and not try and under price...

Some products it is much cheaper to have monopolies or oligopolies. How many gas pipelines do you want in your neighborhood? That would be absurd. Of course, you not buy it and (depending on where you live and situation) put up solar panels, have a wood stove, use electric heat, put on a sweater, buy propane, etc. But, yeah, for certain things there are natural monopolies. (Or forced ones, like in most cities they will not let you take your house "off the grid".) Ideally, the pipeline/gridsystem/water is regulated by the State or local and you elect those people so that they aren't screwing you. But sure, there is corruption but most of that is not in the  PHYSICAL aspect of energy but in the FINANCIAL part of it (the future trading, "spot" prices, over-production or cartel/OPEC manipulation, etc) and regulation ("summer blends", changes in areas to types of gasoline, changes to diesel, etc) by government. Hear, if in the county, not city, but in some cities you can use different electricity companies (but this hasn't resulted in cheaper rates often) but they aren't, necessarily, "producing" or "transporting" anything but simply using financial models and claim they can deliver a cheaper (or more stable) price to the consumer. Jury out on it.

[Dyna-X]

No matter if Global Warming is human caused or real or not I think is a secondary issue. On a personal level I believe very much in practicing the three "R's" Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle as well as any efforts to switch to alternative energies, including the classic renewables, Fusion and beyond.

In the media I find it a bit silly that every big storm, localized hot summer, cold summer or drought is blamed on Global Warming.  What caused the 1930s dustbowl?  I just dont think its a one way "either/or" and like many things there are mitigating and unexplored factors and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There was a recent report that they planet had 7 times as many trees as the biosphere experts had previously thought.  CO2 would make for denser foliage, maybe its the trees that are saving us all from cooking.  How will we know unless updated data like this is taken into account?

[ZomZom]

A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

[albrecht]

No matter if Global Warming is human caused or real or not I think is a secondary issue. On a personal level I believe very much in practicing the three "R's" Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle as well as any efforts to switch to alternative energies, including the classic renewables, Fusion and beyond.

In the media I find it a bit silly that every big storm, localized hot summer, cold summer or drought is blamed on Global Warming.  What caused the 1930s dustbowl?  I just dont think its a one way "either/or" and like many things there are mitigating and unexplored factors and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There was a recent report that they planet had 7 times as many trees as the biosphere experts had previously thought.  CO2 would make for denser foliage, maybe its the trees that are saving us all from cooking.  How will we know unless updated data like this is taken into account?

Yeah, this guy last night, although well-credentialed and educated, was blaming every "weather event," as the news stupity calls them, on global warming on CO2. Like earth has never had hurricanes (oddly recently we've had a lot less around here,) blizzards, droughts, typhoons, etc before humans and their pesky CO2. I was disappointed with that. Unfortunately, those on the extremes use this stuff as data (as he mention the extreme deniers point to the snowstorm in just for the "warming" and so does he!)
If they can get TREES (?!?) wrong how good on they on a lot less subtle things?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366

ps: I would've loved to have this guest on OSOM. I think it would classic with RCH trying to bring in "torsion" into the "climate change model" and questions about using arcologies to save humanity from the warming, etc.

[Dyna-X]

Yeah, this guy last night, although well-credentialed and educated, was blaming every "weather event," as the news stupity calls them, on global warming on CO2. Like earth has never had hurricanes (oddly recently we've had a lot less around here,) blizzards, droughts, typhoons, etc before humans and their pesky CO2. I was disappointed with that. Unfortunately, those on the extremes use this stuff as data (as he mention the extreme deniers point to the snowstorm in just for the "warming" and so does he!)
If they can get TREES (?!?) wrong how good on they on a lot less subtle things?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366

ps: I would've loved to have this guest on OSOM. I think it would classic with RCH trying to bring in "torsion" into the "climate change model" and questions about using arcologies to save humanity from the warming, etc.

RCH's take was interesting, as if even he is thinking there are more factors involved and other creative solutions are possible. (In a nutshell)

[Bodach]

Just finished last nights show. I enjoyed it immensely but am saddened to see that a lot of people ignore the political side of this issue.  It has affected me enough to whizz on the electric fence by writing this calling the two main camps to task; "settled sciencers" and "deniers". Participation in the groups seem to be highly correlated with ones political views.  The most alarming part is the wacky part of both segments is quite large and not confined to the fringe.

I know that I don't have time to check all of the scientific papers to see if there are any biases in studies.  I think that we have to all assume the scientists know what they are doing and if the preponderance of papers suggest climate change then we must believe these facts.  I do get alarmed when I hear of computer models of the climate.  These models are only as good as the inputs and biases built in the model.   It is concerning because our models of local weather  leave a lot to be desired. I think the climate would be even more complex.  I have heard several models predict catastrophes in the future that weren't borne out.

I think that "settled sciencers" project an air of superiority and launch ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with their viewpoint.  Check back through the this thread if you don't believe me.  Perhaps for most it out of frustration trying to convince the closed-minded, but there is a large element of the superiority complex.

Most of the "deniers" seem to have their heads in the sand.  As I said a preponderance of papers seem to indicate climate change, disputing a few papers on the fringe does not change the findings.  These people do deserve the ad hominem attacks.  I hate any dearly held position that is the result of ignorance or laziness.  These positions must be re-evaluated as new evidence or thoughts are presented.

Now for the third, and I hope largest, camp.  Those of us who realize climate change is real but are not yet convinced that humans are the main cause.  Now before you accuse me of being a bible thumping Christian ( I'm not) or living in the equivalent of the central or southern U.S. (I don't) let me explain.  I have a BS in engineering and an MBA.  I think it safe to say I understand statistics.  Let's look at simple scenario that will illustrate that correlation does not imply causation.  I think we can agree that everyone that has died was      once conceived.  There is perfect correlation (1) between these facts.  Yet it is difficult to argue that the cause of death of everyone was conception.  With the complexities of climate change I think it is difficult to single out humans as the sole or even major cause.  With that said human carbon output is the only thing we can effectively control so all efforts to reduce this should be looked at.

Sorry for the wall of text.  Feel free to attack me if I've pissed you off.  That won't stop me from buying you the beverage of your choice if we ever meet to have a conversation about this.  A world where everyone thought like me
would suck.

Very well said.  And points to the problem, and one of the reasons behind the "rabiddness" of those that believe the "settled science" isn't in fact settled.  We are called "deniers", and grouped with those that think the climate is stagnant.  The vast majority of "deniers" simply don't see the rational behind saying "man made climate change is real and is settled by the scientific community".  Especially when their own mass studies show a majority of climatologists not even taking a stance. 

We hear this from even our president.  It is as if people who do not get on the wagon are "conspiracy theorist" level mocked.  Which also goes to show the tactic being used against legitimate research on actual conspiracies/cover ups or behind the curtain motivations of activities.  They do actually exist.  But the legitimate stuff is just thrown into the pile of "THEY'RE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS", and it is shunned.  Those that see no reason to correlate man made climate change to our changing climate are lumped into a group that has kooks.  This is a major part of why many are "rabid". 

The rabidness also comes from what happens if man IS creating or furthering climate change.  Governments cease on that.  The people don't like government seizures of power.  We never have.  And especially seizures based on a farce.  This makes the issue extremely important and not just "well you don't just want to let pollution happen, right?!".

I would love a show where there is a counter argument from a knowledgeable source.  I guarantee, this guest would resort to ad hom within minutes.  Who says that kind of thing?  "He is overweight and he smokes".  Maybe he's stressed, doc.  I'm doubting he doesn't know obesity and smoking are bad for you.  Debate the idea, not the idea maker.  The data.  Scrutinize the data and the analysis.  If you can't, get off the air. 

It really was sickening.

[GravitySucks]

A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

Ding Ding Ding

[chefist]

Ding Ding Ding

Is global warming the new Satan? A repository for all the fear and hate?

[GravitySucks]

Is global warming the new Satan? A repository for all the fear and hate?

I think global warming bypassed Satan long ago in getting blamed for lots of things.

[albrecht]

I think global warming bypassed Satan long ago in getting blamed for lots of things.

Well, if anyone was going to cause "warming"...."Satan?" (as that SNL guy used to say?)

[Rico999]

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. We also ignore the possible positives of a warmer climate. At least in the northern hemisphere (more crops, melting glaciers mean more water, cheaper/quicking shipping lanes in NW passage, easier access to precious and rare-earth minerals, oil&gas, etc. And we ignore that technology (of various kinds) that can help us adapt to changing climate. The earth has warmed/cooled many times before. To me the "consensus" almost "anthropomorphicizes" the idea of earth, like a Gaia Hypothesis. It is some sentient being that "cares" about us or that we are, somehow, not a part of nature or are "hurting" this entity: earth. I think we over-estimate the power of people. The earth, at times, was a lot hotter, and a lot cooler, when there were no people (or very few of our ancient ancestors.) I reckon if we set off every nuke and biological weapon we held the earth would keep on spinning and in a few billion years there would be some type of life.

So from a purely selfish perspective we should deal with the "warming," if it is happening. But doing so by looking after ourselves. Not cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think the focus on the "warming" takes away attention from some things we can really control- and have a direct, quicker impact on humanity: over-fishing, nuclear waste, heavy metal pollution, bad agricultural practices, recycling, war, etc or focusing on other technological solutions.

If these people really, truly, believed in their theories they would be doing like last night. Having the "warming" conferences over the telephone or by internet video conference. Not flying private jets to exotic locales and to met with a fleet of limousines to go hob-nobbing with  celebrities and politicians; dining of imported fine foods and fine wine. They would try to limit THEIR footprint first. Lead by example.

Albrecht,

Sorry, but melting glaciers don't equate to "more water."  Melting glaciers mean LESS water.   Slow melting of glaciers keeps rivers flowing, aquifers charged, etc.  The big thing here in CA is that with the projected precip from El Nino, it's hoped that it will lead to a recharged snowpack in the Sierra and in the Cascades further up the coast.  If high elevation temps remain too high to support a snowpack of any size or it just rains higher up, we'll have floods and the deep aquifers will not recharge.  And then we'll really be in trouble.   

Water held in snow and ice is much better than in lakes or reservoirs (such as Lake Powell for example).  The evap rate in these desert reservoirs is so high that we lose as much as we save.  Thus, rapidly melting glaciers are a very bad thing.  Cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Vegas, LA and San Francisco are all going to be in trouble.  I wouldn't bet that Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tucson will last the century in their current form.  LA and Southern California, neither, for that matter.

As for the discussion on whether or not climate change disruption is human-induced or not, all I can say is look at the science.  It's been going on now for more than 40 years and the evidence is overwhelming that human activity is the cause.  It's as close to "settled" as it can be, for real.   But hell, don't take my word for it, read the literature.  It's out there for all to see.  The so-called "deniers" that Dave Noory likes to have on are in almost every case, shills for various interest groups that have too much skin in the game to back out.  Thus their only recourse is to convince the average American to question the science. 

Unfortunately, the situation is very serious and there are many changes that we as a society are going to be going through this century because of the inability of the the major powers to act in an expeditious manner to mitigate the effects.   There are going to be many opportunities, but the challenges are going to be very difficult.

I appreciate the fact that Art would have someone on the program that's actually been doing the work in the field and can respond to questions from a competent interviewer.   

[albrecht]

Albrecht,

Sorry, but melting glaciers don't equate to "more water."  Melting glaciers mean LESS water.   Slow melting of glaciers keeps rivers flowing, aquifers charged, etc.  The big thing here in CA is that with the projected precip from El Nino, it's hoped that it will lead to a recharged snowpack in the Sierra and in the Cascades further up the coast.  If high elevation temps remain too high to support a snowpack of any size or it just rains higher up, we'll have floods and the deep aquifers will not recharge.  And then we'll really be in trouble.   

Water held in snow and ice is much better than in lakes or reservoirs (such as Lake Powell for example).  The evap rate in these desert reservoirs is so high that we lose as much as we save.  Thus, rapidly melting glaciers are a very bad thing.  Cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Vegas, LA and San Francisco are all going to be in trouble.  I wouldn't bet that Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tucson will last the century in their current form.  LA and Southern California, neither, for that matter.

As for the discussion on whether or not climate change disruption is human-induced or not, all I can say is look at the science.  It's been going on now for more than 40 years and the evidence is overwhelming that human activity is the cause.  It's as close to "settled" as it can be, for real.   But hell, don't take my word for it, read the literature.  It's out there for all to see.  The so-called "deniers" that Dave Noory likes to have on are in almost every case, shills for various interest groups that have too much skin in the game to back out.  Thus their only recourse is to convince the average American to question the science. 

Unfortunately, the situation is very serious and there are many changes that we as a society are going to be going through this century because of the inability of the the major powers to act in an expeditious manner to mitigate the effects.   There are going to be many opportunities, but the challenges are going to be very difficult.

I appreciate the fact that Art would have someone on the program that's actually been doing the work in the field and can respond to questions from a competent interviewer.

Depends where they went and run off goes! Channels to Cali, West Texas, etc? Into reservoirs, canals,  and dammed canyons to to make hydro instead of burning coal or even nat gas? Maybe a plus! Geo-engineering could be a good thing (not the "nuking to create new canals or whatever claimed chemtrails) but proper canals, pipelines, etc for water? Why not? The stuff up north and ice-blockades on rivers? Instead of the floods find away...technology can solve things. And real "jobs created". Imagaine this stuff, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

[Rico999]

Depends where they went and run off goes! Channels to Cali, West Texas, etc? Into reservoirs, canals,  and dammed canyons to to make hydro instead of burning coal or even nat gas? Maybe a plus! Geo-engineering could be a good thing (not the "nuking to create new canals or whatever claimed chemtrails) but proper canals, pipelines, etc for water? Why not? The stuff up north and ice-blockades on rivers? Instead of the floods find away...technology can solve things. And real "jobs created". Imagaine this stuff, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

I've heard of it, read the Wiki piece, but it appears to be a nonstarter these days and I'm glad of it, to be honest.  I'd suggest you might want to check out the late Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert," which long ago in the 90s addressed water issues in the West.  Woke me right up back then and I've been on this issue ever since.    I am very much against dams and water diversion projects.  Ruining natural river systems that have evolved over billions of years isn't going to help humans, it's going to make things even worse.  In my opinion.

Take the Snake River in Idaho for example.  It starts up in Yellowstone and meanders down into Southern Idaho and then up into Washington where it meets the Columbia.  It's a key inland waterway in the West because it's a source for fresh water for human use and for agriculture as well.   It's a desert river in much of it's drainage, especially in S. Idaho.   What's happening now is a proliferation of mega-dairy farms near Twin Falls and that general area.  It's a desert.  And cows are very thirsty critters.  Not only that, but they pollute.  The politicians say that "jobs" are being created, but they're very low paying.  Meanwhile, a key river system is being drained of much-needed fresh water to support cows in a desert!  It's nuts!   

An excellent article can be found in High Country News that discusses this:  https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.13/idahos-sewer-system-is-the-snake-river

The problem, in short is human activity -- and that the human population on earth is far above carrying capacity -- which at max is about 2 billion.   As you're probably aware, we're in the middle of a great extinction period, every bit as much as the Permian Extinction of 250 million years ago.  And it's human caused, believe it.

That said, there's a lot on the table that has to be discussed and studied.  The situation with fresh water everywhere in the world is pretty grim, but it's never discussed in the mainstream media.  I'll tell you one thing though:  The planners in all the major countries get it.  The Pentagon gets it and understands very well that wars are going to be fought over access to fresh water this century. 

And this doesn't even address the incredible pollution in the world's oceans and seas.....

Areas in this country that are in big trouble -- aside from the obvious (Arizona, Nevada, California and much of the rest of the Mountain West) include Florida.  That state sits on a chunk of limestone, which acts like a sponge.  There are many pristine aquifers in Florida, but some are being ruined for rock quarrying (in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area) and with sea level rise, a glass of fresh drinking water in Miami in the not real distant future is going to be a moot point.

Imagine being the first person to turn on the tap and find out that the water you want to drink is now salty?  And there isn't a whole lot that can be done about it once an aquifer is contaminated with salt.   

[b_dubb]

Yeah, I tend to agree with you. We also ignore the possible positives of a warmer climate. At least in the northern hemisphere (more crops, melting glaciers mean more water, cheaper/quicking shipping lanes in NW passage, easier access to precious and rare-earth minerals, oil&gas,

Alligators in Ohio. Mosquitoes the size of a Buick. Increasingly humid and hot summers. Huge chunks of the population moving away from drought and famine.

Can't wait.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

Imagaine this stuff, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance

I remember learning about that in high school in the 80s.  It wasn't exactly a popular idea up here in Canuck land.

[pumaman]

Albrecht,

I wouldn't bet that Phoenix, Las Vegas and Tucson will last the century in their current form.  LA and Southern California, neither, for that matter.

I'll take you up on that bet.

[Rico999]

I'll take you up on that bet.

Right.  And I'd like to take your money, but I won't be around in 2100 to do it.  Too bad.

[michio]

Why do people believe astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists they trust as telling the truth, but when it comes to climate scientists they're seen as evil and underhanded? Maybe this 2012 video will shed some light on that question for you. Watch online for free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

One does not believe in global warming like it's a matter of faith in the unknowable, one is a supporter of the science and its knowable evidence that tells us there is global warming, and the evidence that tells us what is largely behind the current climate change.

[Bodach]

Why do people believe astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists they trust as telling the truth, but when it comes to climate scientists they're seen as evil and underhanded?

If you're actually interested in this answer, sift through this very informative page:

http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

Mountains of reasons.

Not to mention the dogma of this being claimed as settled science:

[Bodach]

Here are some great hits from the software engineers developing the system that is used today in all our "settled science" models.  These leaks came out of the Climategate scandal.  People just aren't aware of just how manipulated the engine AND the data is for everything that is cited by our politicians and climate activists.  This is dangerous stuff.  The implications of man made climate change are broad and powerful.  Why do you think governments and the UN are funding this "research" so heavily?  It grants them extraordinary power and taxation/industry control.  People need to be aware of this side of things, and end the whole "you're just a denier" thing.  Look into this.  Don't be a blind dogmatic puppet.

"stop in 1960 to avoid the decline"

"stop in 1940 to avoid the decline"

"but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!"

"and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation."

"this renders the station counts totally meaningless."

"Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)"

"As we can see, even I'm cocking it up!"

"yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases"

"recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED"

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

"artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline"

"we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400"

"It's botch after botch after botch."

"Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite."

"As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless."

"So what's going on? I don't see how the 'final' precip file can have been produced from the 'final' precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04."

"You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization] codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..."

"OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases."

[chefist]

Why do people believe astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists they trust as telling the truth, but when it comes to climate scientists they're seen as evil and underhanded? Maybe this 2012 video will shed some light on that question for you. Watch online for free.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

One does not believe in global warming like it's a matter of faith in the unknowable, one is a supporter of the science and its knowable evidence that tells us there is global warming, and the evidence that tells us what is largely behind the current climate change.

I think the main reason is that the proposed solution is a "tax". The left has always been associated with increased taxation and the growth of the government.  When they use every crisis to propose higher taxes, people get suspicious. 

Also, when someone like Al Gore could potentially become a Billionaire by his control of the exchanges, then you even get groups on the left of the political spectrum that begin to have doubts. 

Is global warming real, I think that it is.  However, the skepticism in the science is rooted in the money and politics that everyone is trying to take advantage of.

[Lt.Uhura]

Rather than argue over whether climate change is "real" and who's at fault, isn't sustainability the real issue here? 

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/groundwatercrisis.pdf


http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/04/13/the-guarani-aquifer-a-little-known-water-resource-in-south-america-gets-a-voice/

From the article above---the likely crux of the problem facing water-starved regions worldwide: 

"Humanity is extracting and polluting the world’s fresh water reserves faster than they can be replenished. Rampant economic growth â€" more homes, more businesses, more water-intensive products and processes, and a rising standard of living â€" has outstripped the ready supply, especially in historically dry regions."


....Maybe it's just human nature to take things for granted, then cry and sing the blues after our lover has walked out the door.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHaMV_eXko

[michio]

Rather than argue over whether climate change is "real" and who's at fault, isn't sustainability the real issue here? 

Look up how much of the world's fresh drinking and crop irrigation water comes from those melting and disappearing glaciers no one cares about. Note I said disappearing as in not to be back for who knows how long.

I think it's critically important to know if it's real, judging from a number of the comments I've read calling it nonsense and only done for the money. Will it be nonsense for your children or your children's children when they have to deal with the brunt of a quickly changing climate and a hotter world? Will you be saving them money by leaving our problems to them? Is it cheaper to fix a problem at its early stages or wait until it's developed into a full-blown disaster?  What's better, being proactive or reactive? Are you willing to bet your progeny's future on your ignorant, non-expert armchair opinion? I certainly hope not, because it isn't what I'd consider as doing the right or smart thing.

It's absolutely important to know what's at fault because if you don't figure out what's behind GW and resultant CC, then what's to stop an already monumental problem from becoming increasingly worse?  Magic? God? Wait for and depend on a technological marvel and near miracle that may never arrive? The Earth takes a long, long time to respond to greenhouse gases, but it does respond and it's now doing so in unexpected ways in the form of positive feedbacks that amplify the warming and make a complex situation even harder to understand, as this is a mad global climate experiment unprecedented in the history of the Earth.  Global warming is speeding up, though it was already way too fast for a natural type of climate change.  We're like the naive little children who are playing with nature's dangerous matches.  What's too much CO2 for you, 400PPM (present day), 1000PPM, 2000PPM?  More is better!, they like to say about CO2. No, more is not always better.  More can be worse.  If there is no end to the rise of CO2 because you can't/won't agree on what the source of it is, you run around in circles and go nowhere.  You fight against an invisible enemy and swing wildly to no avail.  If you don't know what's causing it then how can you expect to mitigate/solve it?  We'll just go on being as happily oblivious to the hazards of burning fossil fuels in the 21st and maybe into the 22nd century (should we not deplete it all before then) as we were in the 20th and earlier centuries.  The difference is we had the excuse of honest ignorance in the earlier centuries, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries we have no one to blame but ourselves and willful ignorance.

[wr250]

how about instead of worrying about climate change we :
clean up after ourselves
use sustainable farming techniques that require little to no added fertilizer  or pest/herbicides (and/or organic methods which are more friendly to runoff into streams lakes rivers, etc)
quit dumping trash/sewage into the water supplies/oceans
use more recycling
use less  plastic and more recyclable  products such as glass containers (which can be reused as is after washing)
quit burning down forests because you dont use sustainable farming techniques

[michio]

If you're actually interested in this answer, sift through this very informative page:

http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

Mountains of reasons.

Not to mention the dogma of this being claimed as settled science:

Oh, it's as reasonably settled as it can be without knowing exactly how every little thing is going to unfold in the years to come.  Global warming has human fingerprints all over it. I may have stolen a line from Neil deGrasse Tyson there. 

You expect me, a non-expert to sift through a bunch of cherry-picked data and quotes taken out of context and make a long rebuttal? No, thanks. I'll leave that to the actual experts who could easily pick it apart, just as Trenberth did to a number of the denier callers.  You should take note that "Climategate" has been officially investigated by the British government, for one, and they've found nothing nefarious or deceptive in their investigation with the climate scientists emails.  In that video I linked, they said as of 2012 there were NINE official investigations and NOT ONE found anything illegal or deceptive on the part of the climate scientists who wrote those emails. About all that "climategate" accomplished was make people and denier politicians go on witch hunts for innocent climate scientists who had to waste their valuable time and energy defending themselves against those witch hunts. Any link that references "climategate" as a reputable and valid source of information isn't worth my time.

Science is not a religion nor is it dogma. Science changes based on new/updated evidence and it has changed in the past and it will change when required in the future.  Here's a tip for you about how science works. Doubt is a part of science. It's integral to how it works. When they say they're sure AGW is real, they are saying we're not going to lie and say we're 100% incontrovertibly certain, but it's as close to being reasonably sure, based on a broad spectrum of scientific discipline evidence, as can be without pretending to be god-like and dogmatic.

Richard P. Feynman - "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences."

http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warming

[whoozit]

Oh, it's as reasonably settled as it can be without knowing exactly how every little thing is going to unfold in the years to come.  Global warming has human fingerprints all over it. I may have stolen a line from Neil deGrasse Tyson there. 

You expect me, a non-expert to sift through a bunch of cherry-picked data and quotes taken out of context and make a long rebuttal? No, thanks. I'll leave that to the actual experts who could easily pick it apart, just as Trenberth did to a number of the denier callers.  You should take note that "Climategate" has been officially investigated by the British government, for one, and they've found nothing nefarious or deceptive in their investigation with the climate scientists emails.  In that video I linked, they said as of 2012 there were NINE official investigations and NOT ONE found anything illegal or deceptive on the part of the climate scientists who wrote those emails. About all that "climategate" accomplished was make people and denier politicians go on witch hunts for innocent climate scientists who had to waste their valuable time and energy defending themselves against those witch hunts. Any link that references "climategate" as a reputable and valid source of information isn't worth my time.

Science is not a religion nor is it dogma. Science changes based on new/updated evidence and it has changed in the past and it will change when required in the future.  Here's a tip for you about how science works. Doubt is a part of science. It's integral to how it works. When they say they're sure AGW is real, they are saying we're not going to lie and say we're 100% incontrovertibly certain, but it's as close to being reasonably sure, based on a broad spectrum of scientific discipline evidence, as can be without pretending to be god-like and dogmatic.

Richard P. Feynman - "Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences."

http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warming

Do you know where I can find out how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere each year and how much is the result of human activity?  I remember hearing the portion from humans was minuscule but have not been able to find any real data.  I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, I'm just curious and want to know the truth.

[GravitySucks]

Do you know where I can find out how much carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere each year and how much is the result of human activity?  I remember hearing the portion from humans was minuscule but have not been able to find any real data.  I'm not trying to perpetuate an argument, I'm just curious and want to know the truth.

Can't vouch for the accuracy, but here is one resource
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm