How to Solve the Climate Change Problem

[lordlundar]

Today's climate change debate: Hulk Hogan vs. Big Boss Man?

No no no. That's WWE. Didn't you pay attention to the court case?

[draco664]

There's historical (or at least legendary) precedent for legislating against water levels rising, and it didn't go too well for the legislator involved - North Carolina should read about King Canute.

Except that the story in question is about NC legislating against using speculative models of future sea-levels, not legislating against the sea-levels themselves.

Back when it was called "global warming" instead of "climate change", one thing that got to me was that conferences about it were always held in the middle of winter, when you could reasonably expect the public to be thinking "I'm freezing my ass off - global warming? Bring it on!".

The thing about the conferences, they always seem to be held in luxury resorts. And they're always promoted with huge "We're gonna save the world" rhetoric, and they always end with "an agreement to start looking towards setting up a committee to decide what shape the table will be that we all gather around to come to an agreement on when we should start thinking about doing something about the problem. But it's a verbal agreement, not a binding one."

Which of course means that next year, the same people are jetting off to yet another fucking luxury resort on the taxpayer's dime.

And they wonder why people are getting disillusioned with them.

[draco664]

When the IPCC stop using WWF promotional material in lieu of actual peer-reviewed science. (And stop calling people who point this out 'voodoo scientists')

Today's climate change debate: Hulk Hogan vs. Big Boss Man?

The article I remember reading is now behind a paywall, but this blog post has most of it quoted.

Basically, in the IPCC AR4, it was stated that the Himalayian glaciers could disappear by 2035. But instead of coming from a peer-reviewed source, it came from a New Scientist article, which in turn based the claim on a single phone interview, which was part of a WWF study. The guy who initially made the claim has since said that it was speculative and not based on any research.

But Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, called criticism of the claim "voodoo science".

Then it turns out that when actual, you know, peer-reviewed research is considered, the himalayan glaciers are acutally not in bad shape at all, and are not likely to disappear in the next few hundred years.

Who thinks an apology was issues? Anyone?

[HYHYBT]

Except that the story in question is about NC legislating against using speculative models of future sea-levels, not legislating against the sea-levels themselves.

There ARE no non-speculative models, though. What they've done is take the most favorable one and insist it be the only one allowed.

[Greenday]

There ARE no non-speculative models, though. What they've done is take the most favorable one and insist it be the only one allowed.

It's the option where they don't have to actively do anything about it in their lifetimes. Let someone else deal with the problem.

[draco664]

There ARE no non-speculative models, though. What they've done is take the most favorable one and insist it be the only one allowed.

No, they've insisted on using the one that extrapolates a linear sea-level rise.

You know, like from the last 20 years of satelite data.



That's a pretty consistent 3.1 mm/year rise for a long time. If you want to try and use a model that extrapolates an accelerating sea-level rise, you better have better "evidence" than just assumptions plugged into the computer model.

It's the option where they don't have to actively do anything about it in their lifetimes. Let someone else deal with the problem.

Consider that in a 'lifetime' of 75 years, you might see a rise of maybe 9 inches, spending resources now to protect things that won't be in danger for a couple of centuries is not a reasonable use of taxpayer money.

When the people screaming that there's a problem with rising sea-levels stop buying beach-front property, I'll start listening. Meanwhile, some perspective...



Each of the MWP points on the graph represent a "Melt Water Pulse". Now, consider that this graph represents less than half the time that Aboriginals have lived in Australia, and the tiny rise of sea level we see in modern times is not fast or problematic.

[HYHYBT]

20 years is *not* "a long time"... and the built in speculation is that whatever cause(s) there are for the rise remain the same. So, for example, it's assuming that those glaciers in Greenland, etc that now have meltwater underneath won't get lubricated enough to slide off faster.

Put it any way you like, but it's still speculative. Whether it's a reasonable assumption to make or not does not negate that fact. Why is it not better to have a variety of models, taking as many possibilities into consideration as you can think of, and see what the best and worst case outcomes might be, rather than deciding *by law* that only one possibility may be considered?

Remember, however consistent the last two decades may have been, it can't always be that way. Working backwards, that would have the oceans almost nonexistent just 100,000 years or so ago.

[draco664]

20 years is *not* "a long time"... and the built in speculation is that whatever cause(s) there are for the rise remain the same.

Very true. 20 years is not long. But it is what we have for accurate satellite data. Of course, we also have a couple of hundred years of measured sea levels. Guess what? Linear. We also have archeological evidence of neolithic settlements under a few metres of water. Guess what? Extrapolated, they show a linear increase.

I am not discounting other models, but when they start offering assumptions as evidence, I do start questioning their validity. Melt water under Greenland icesheets? Did that scenario have an impact when Vikings were farming the coast? Historical records suggest not.

Of all the problems we have with our environment, the evidence suggests sea level rise is not a big one. Unless something BIG happens, most likely is a slow, steady increase.

[HYHYBT]

I am not discounting other models, but when they start offering assumptions as evidence, I do start questioning their validity. Melt water under Greenland icesheets? Did that scenario have an impact when Vikings were farming the coast? Historical records suggest not.

Of course not. That does not rationally take it out of consideration now. Even a very tiny change matters when it's from "just barely below freezing" to "just barely above freezing."