Degrowth? (post growth, end of growth... economics)

[Petty Tyrant]

Thats the believers perspective/explanation, Im interested in the denialists perspective.

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

Thats the believers perspective/explanation, Im interested in the denialists perspective.

Remember, less than 5% of studies dispute AGW, and almost all of those are funded by those corporations who would lose out if people changed their way of living.

When sustainability becomes the most profitable option, then it will become the mass market dejure.  Not until then, though. 

• Tweet

[JRM]

[....] Certianly they have an effect, but i don't buy the theoretical positive feedbacks in climate models that can't be demonstrated to occur IRL. 

So, for example, you don't believe in the ice-albedo feedback?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback

Doesn't it just make common sense to you that dark blue water will absorb more heat from the sun than reflective, white ice sheets?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/689573main1_MinSeaIce_20120916-670.jpg

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

SL
You seem very well informed on how many climate scientists there were before and are now and what their temp predictions have been . Im wondering why CSIRO, NASA etc would want to fudge data when the govts that fund them are so reluctant to take any action?

Im also wondering why every time I hear anything on the radio they talk about a range of temp increase for air and ocean and they always say that the warming is in the range expected. Are they lying? Last year was the hottest on record here, and new years day this year was expected 50C /122F, Even hotter, I didnt watch the news in the evening to see if it got there or not.

We are adding the heat released by the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs every second that passes acording to some counts.

Maybe its not that hot in your nabe because the earth is like a burst zit off of the sun that cooled down enough for the outside layer to solidify and theres no new molten magma being added to the earths core so its got nothing to do except keep cooling down. Maybe its the extreme weather the climate science conspiracy is lying about. If theyre collectively wrong I want to know how and why.

I have some acquaintances in climate science, they might have become closer friends, but they have moved south.

Unfortunately i've no inside contacts at Never A Straight Answer (NASA) and know even less about your CSIRO.  Surprisingly enough, NASA's atmospheric temperature satellite data is not seriously questioned.

I've seen some claims that the climate emergency is a conspiracy.  NWO control, carbon tax trading ripoffs or otherwise.  Ignoring claimants promoting BAU, some are still interesting.  The burden of proof is on the proponents though, and however plausible their claims, that proof has been inadequate so far.  I need hard evidence to go there.  Submissions of such evidence are welcome!

Several books have been written documenting various frauds in climate data.  I've put off ordering them.  In working toward a scientific understanding first, i've so far tried to sidestep the alarmist vs denier mudslinging contest.   I got some perspective by studying climate and paleo climate history from before the current enthusiasm.

If there is a conspiracy, as some claim; or if climate scientists are lying and/or fudging data to justify funding as others claim with more evidence, then we have a problem.  Since no one i know can afford to independently replicate or verify current data, how do we proceed to understand what is actually happening with climate?  The state of the climate is more interesting to me than the state of an alleged conspiracy.

Sure, it's real easy for me to know it's getting colder here, where i live; and MSM in USA is now doing "Frozen Nation" news specials with cold records being set daily.  But how do i determine what's currently happening with worldwide land, ocean, and atmospheric temps if i can't trust the outfits collecting the data?   

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

Thats the believers perspective/explanation, Im interested in the denialists perspective.

Remember, less than 5% of studies dispute AGW, and almost all of those are funded by those corporations who would lose out if people changed their way of living.

When sustainability becomes the most profitable option, then it will become the mass market dejure.  Not until then, though.

So, if i can get more studies approved than you, or more papers published, does that make me right?  When did we decide that truth resided in the camp controlling research funds and the peer review process?  Who else is going to fund a study that disputes AGW?   Certianly not the current "scientific" establishment.  Will the IPCC fund a study emphasizing natural cycles over AGW in recent climate change?  Not likely with Greenpeace types deciding what is accepted.

A few do overcome these hurdles, and their studies/papers are simply ignored. 

There is lots of oil money (mostly BP & Shell but also others) funding climate science, including entire university climate colleges, and also funding enviornmental orgs.  Can't have the opposition running the opposition now, can we?

The shepard and the border collie work together to herd the sheep for the owner.  Likewise the .gov/.edu scientists and the oil co's appear to work together for their owners while pretending dispute.  What isn't clear is just where the slaughterhouse is.

Perhaps, as cold gets more extreme, a few more will question the groupthink.

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

I believe the data supports the idea that the climate in general in warming.  I'm not convinced is is entirely humanity's fault.  I'm willing to consider an explanation of the underlying cause that ranges from, 'humanity is having a negligible impact' though to 'we would have been in an ice age by now, instead we're going the other way'.

I don't care who is to blame.  I care about:

1. What will the effects be?

2. What mitigating actions can we take?


Far more interesting questions, and it avoids the political aspect. My point was that AGW as a fact is only disputed by a corporately-funded few.  Denialism is pointless, as is finger-pointing. We need to concentrate on what to expect and what to do.
 

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

[....] Certianly they have an effect, but i don't buy the theoretical positive feedbacks in climate models that can't be demonstrated to occur IRL. 

So, for example, you don't believe in the ice-albedo feedback?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback

Doesn't it just make common sense to you that dark blue water will absorb more heat from the sun than reflective, white ice sheets?

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/689573main1_MinSeaIce_20120916-670.jpg

There is no need for belief in those feedbacks.  They are easily demonstrated and they never led to a runaway greenhouse effect, even when CO² was at multiples of present.

Exactly how, in your view, does a hypothetical runaway greenhouse effect overcome the almost exponential increase in W/m² of heat lost to space as the atmosphere warms?

• Tweet

[Snowleopard]

I believe the data supports the idea that the climate in general in warming.  I'm not convinced is is entirely humanity's fault.  I'm willing to consider an explanation of the underlying cause that ranges from, 'humanity is having a negligible impact' though to 'we would have been in an ice age by now, instead we're going the other way'.

I don't care who is to blame.  I care about:

1. What will the effects be?

2. What mitigating actions can we take?


Far more interesting questions, and it avoids the political aspect. My point was that AGW as a fact is only disputed by a corporately-funded few.  Denialism is pointless, as is finger-pointing. We need to concentrate on what to expect and what to do.

If the climate is warming or not depends on your time frame and perspective. 

For example, it is certianly warmer now in USA than in colonial times.  It is also warmer now than in the 1970s, but one could dispute if it is warmer now than in the 1930s dust bowl years.  (Get your 1930s temps from era published paper documents to be safe.)

OTOH if one looks at the Minoan warming, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period, it seems each warmed less than the previous and all were warmer than now.  ie. a series of declining tops.

The intervening cold periods also appear longer and colder moving forward, though that data is harder to acquire.  One of the best indicators being where wine could be produced from grapes.

If one looks at northern hemisphere glaciers, almost all (excepting Greenland) did not exist 4000 years ago.  We have, on average, been cooling since then.

We need to concentrate on what to expect and what to do.

I agree with that.

Long term it is going to get colder, absent unknown factors. 

Short term (a human lifetime) both directions are possible.  So unfortunately, we need to prepare for both.

Personally, i expect the ~thirty year cycles to resume, with cooling up next. 

But i think there is a significant chance we are about to see the unexpected early return of a longer cold cycle imposed over the above.  I'm almost alone in that and certianly could be wrong, but major shifts to cold are almost always preceeded by increased volitility and that's here.

You are correct that it doesn't matter who's to blame.  Perhaps i react because i believed the warmist propaganda, even if i didn't buy the cause; and expecting warming, built a house in New Hampshire, and now may likely need to move south.

I'm asking myself do i really want to cut, split and stack this much firewood (or more) each year?  Similar question about snow removal effort.  Heating livestock water.  Shorter growing seasons, etc.

• Tweet

[Petty Tyrant]

SL

So summit after summit decade after decade non target after non target is all a charade geared at introducing a carbon tax, though you dont have one, and the industry that has to pay the carbon tax is working hand in glove with the govt to get taxed some day.

They are pretending for decades that they dont want to take action kyoto, copenhagen etc etc, Nothing. Yet they are telling all the scientists to lie and fudge data to produce results saying they need to act.

As if they dont have a thousand other ways to maximally tax you. And big biz who controls govt is putting on a charade for decaes because they want to be taxed, they want coal and gas and oil to give way to renewables. Thats the conspiracy.

Smoking does not kill anyone, 95% of research saying it does cannot be trusted and 5% of research by tobacco saying its not settled are a co-conspiracy of fake results, because the govt is not doing anything except tax tobacco.

Since we cannot trust any scientific data why not disregard those seizmic charts, since I have never in my life felt a tremor. Scientists explanations of why my nabe is different to san francisco or japan re earthquake are fake too, if scientists explanations of why your nabe is different to the Savannah Leopards desertification re warming dont mean jack.

Exactly how do you experimentally model an earths atmosphere to test the greenhouse effect as you say? How do you get a globe with gravity and heat and cold and water not falling off it but sticking to it in a weightlessness chamber devoid of oxygen like space, with a heat source like the sun? Ice at the caps and all that to do your experiment on heat loss from earth to space to your satisfaction.

Sounds to me like trying to getting a dummy and put cigarrettes in its mouth and if it doesnt get any deader say smoking doesnt kill people and no experiment has proven it.

Anyway the more room for hope the better, extreme weather makes sweet spots for survival a matter of luck it looks like. I imagine winter vegetables will be very expensive there this year.

• Tweet

[g]

I'm asking myself do i really want to cut, split and stack this much firewood (or more) each year?  Similar question about snow removal effort.  Heating livestock water.  Shorter growing seasons, etc.

Hi Snow, Just wanted to comment on how fascinating your recent weather posts have been; boy, the stuff going on with planet earth, and the silent force and unimaginable power of it all is just amazing.

• Tweet

[DoomerSupport]

I'm asking myself do i really want to cut, split and stack this much firewood (or more) each year?  Similar question about snow removal effort.  Heating livestock water.  Shorter growing seasons, etc.

Top of our thoughts when considering Maine as a destination.  Climate instability is a bitch to plan for.

• Tweet

[Eddie]

The points made here in this thread show how much better the term "climate change" is than "global warming".

Humans don't experience climate, we experience weather. And it is what it is, where you happen to be. SL's interesting truth is that it's getting colder where he lives, as it is in some other places.

The kind of thing in the video offered by haniel shows how things like that can happen in a net warming situation. It's complicated.

And if naturally occurring ice age hits man-made or volcanic heat wave, who knows how that might work out?

It's the instability that I think we can all see.

• Tweet

[g]

I'm asking myself do i really want to cut, split and stack this much firewood (or more) each year?  Similar question about snow removal effort.  Heating livestock water.  Shorter growing seasons, etc.

Top of our thoughts when considering Maine as a destination.  Climate instability is a bitch to plan for.

Hi Haniel, I am intimately familiar with Southern Maine.  Let me assure you factually without any doubt that Maine is NOT a place to go if you wish to avoid cold.

• Tweet