• In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

No, I did not ignore them, I pointed out that they are not integral parts of the basic model which implies that we need to do something about warming
This is brilliant. Except for one thing:
There's no evidence that the policies being implemented WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING to offset warming and sea rising.
Essentially youre just irrationally screaming we have to do something with zero evidence that whats being done will "do something"

ZING!
User avatar
DB Roy
Beyond Awesome
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 am
9
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 602 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

geo wrote:The current state of climate science is pretty nebulous, I think. We can draw a big inference that our carbon emissions can and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

I was wondering lately about the extreme drought experienced in the U.S. and other areas of the world in 1930s, one of the worst in 300 years, that led to the Dust Bowl and exodus out of the plains states. If this happened today, I'm pretty sure some would try to connect it to anthropogenic emissions. It's easy to draw such correlations, but as we know, correlation doesn't equal causation. The 1930s drought seems to be cyclical event and such droughts happen on a fairly regular basis. I haven't heard of anyone trying to retrofit the facts of the 1930s drought to climate change, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone did.
The Dust Bowl was largely anthropogenic. Not carbon emissions, of course, but it was partly caused by human interference. The drought and the Dust Bowl were not the same thing but concurrent events.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-y ... -dust-bowl

http://opus1journal.org/articles/article.asp?docID=24

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilder ... sters/dust
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

ant -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate

An opinion piece. In the Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed page has lost all touch with reality. Behind a paywall.

Pretty hard to take seriously.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

ant wrote: Except for one thing:
There's no evidence that the policies being implemented WILL ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING to offset warming and sea rising.
Essentially youre just irrationally screaming we have to do something with zero evidence that whats being done will "do something.
I am unable to make sense of this. We know the CO2 accumulation is raising the temperature of the earth. We know we are dumping 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. We have reason to believe the probability of permanent, catastrophic damage is around 30% if we keep the warming to 2 degrees, and goes up drastically after that. We know that means we have to hit zero GHG emissions in around 25 years to remain within budget, or cut sooner so we can continue longer.

The clear implementation is that all possible conversions to renewables must be made while we still have a carbon budget left to fashion the machinery with and pour the concrete with.

So I really have no idea what your statement meant to say.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

Harry Marks wrote:ant -
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate

An opinion piece. In the Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed page has lost all touch with reality. Behind a paywall.

Pretty hard to take seriously.
No such thing.
Im not a subscriber. It's totally accessible.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

Stanford study says ocean levels may not rise as fast (or high) as once thought:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/sept ... 90315.html

Let me guess:
Stanford is on big oil's payroll.
"Yeah, but ocean levels will rise in the future"
"We can save the planet. We just know we can"
"You are a climate change denier, ant"
Last edited by ant on Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

Ant -

There is nothing wrong with the Stanford study. It may mean we can stabilise CO2 levels quite a bit higher, giving us several decades longer to kick the fossil fuel habit. The Pliocene levels analysed were only a bit above the IPCC targets, though. Higher East Antarctic pack resilience doesn't mean we can pour it on to twice those levels and, Canute-like, expect the sea to stop rising because it went no higher in the Pliocene.

Slower and milder doesn't mean we can avoid the reckoning.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

It
has been indicated that the temperatures started rising about 500 rather than 150 years ago as adherents of the anthropogenic impact on climate consider..,The stabilization of the global temperature in the last decades at a constant increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contradicts the concept, according to which an increase in the global temperature in the last decades is only explained by the anthropogenic impact
http://link.springer.com/article/10.113 ... 321003014X
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

Harry Marks wrote:Ant -

There is nothing wrong with the Stanford study. It may mean we can stabilise CO2 levels quite a bit higher, giving us several decades longer to kick the fossil fuel habit. The Pliocene levels analysed were only a bit above the IPCC targets, though. Higher East Antarctic pack resilience doesn't mean we can pour it on to twice those levels and, Canute-like, expect the sea to stop rising because it went no higher in the Pliocene.

Slower and milder doesn't mean we can avoid the reckoning.
No one said we can pour it on as a result.

"Reckoning" sounds apocalyptic and prophetic.
There has been no prophetic accuracy to date from climate experts that represent the IPCC and the EPA.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Unread post

Incorrect.
To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%, and easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends. It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The “global warming hypothesis” has been developed according to the principles of sound science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... rojection/
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”