Myth of "Consensus Science" Explodes, APS reverses stance

[F8L]

Originally Posted by dogfriend

Sorry.

I just wanted to express my concern. As a skier, I'm aware that the number of good snowpack years seems to be decreasing as I get older. For those that don't ski, you should still be aware that the snowpack is the source of water for the Central Valley of California.

Just giving you a hard time Man.

You've seen the report regarding SMOG levels reducing precipitation in the Sierra Nevada on the CA.Gov site correct? I'll add it in as soon as I find the link again. It's pretty sad. Here is another on Ca and Climate Change concerns.

Regarding climate change, water and California's critical reliance on it:

Agriculture and Food Supply

Climate Factors | Implications for North America
Agriculture is highly sensitive to climate variability and weather extremes, such as droughts, floods and severe storms. The forces that shape our climate are also critical to farm productivity. Human activity has already changed atmospheric characteristics such as temperature, rainfall, levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ground level ozone. The scientific community expects such trends to continue. While food production may benefit from a warmer climate, the increased potential for droughts, floods and heat waves will pose challenges for farmers. Additionally, the enduring changes in climate, water supply and soil moisture could make it less feasible to continue crop production in certain regions.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded:

Recent studies indicate that increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and floods negatively affect crop yields and livestock beyond the impacts of mean climate change, creating the possibility for surprises, with impacts that are larger, and occurring earlier, than predicted using changes in mean variables alone. This is especially the case for subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Climate variability and change also modify the risks of fires, pest and pathogen outbreak, negatively affecting food, fiber and forestry.

Climate Factors

Several factors directly connect climate change and agricultural productivity:

• Average temperature increase
• Change in rainfall amount and patterns
• Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2
• Pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone
• Change in climatic variability and extreme events

Most agricultural impact studies have considered the effects of one or two aspects of climate change on a particular farming activity. Few, however, have considered the full set of anticipated shifts and their impact on agricultural production across the country.
Average temperature increase: An increase in average temperature can 1) lengthen the growing season in regions with a relatively cool spring and fall; 2) adversely affect crops in regions where summer heat already limits production; 3) increase soil evaporation rates, and 4) increase the chances of severe droughts.
Change in rainfall amount and patterns: Changes in rainfall can affect soil erosion rates and soil moisture, both of which are important for crop yields. The IPCC predicts that precipitation will increase in high latitudes, and decrease in most subtropical land regions—some by as much as about 20 percent. While regional precipitation will vary the number of extreme precipitation events is predicted to increase (IPCC, 2007).
Rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2: Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, driven by emissions from human activities, can act as a fertilizer and enhance the growth of some crops such as wheat, rice and soybeans. CO2 can be one of a number of limiting factors that, when increased, can enhance crop growth. Other limiting factors include water and nutrient availability. While it is expected that CO2 fertilization will have a positive impact on some crops, other aspects of climate change (e.g., temperature and precipitation changes) may temper any beneficial CO2 fertilization effect (IPCC, 2007).
Pollution levels such as tropospheric ozone: Higher levels of ground level ozone limit the growth of crops. Since ozone levels in the lower atmosphere are shaped by both emissions and temperature, climate change will most likely increase ozone concentrations. Such changes may offset any beneficial yield effects that result from elevated CO2 levels.
Change in climatic variability and extreme events: Changes in the frequency and severity of heat waves, drought, floods and hurricanes, remain a key uncertainty in future climate change. Such changes are anticipated by global climate models, but regional changes and the potential affects on agriculture are more difficult to forecast

[F8L]

Jason, here is the link to pollution and precipitation reduction in California

[Fibb222]

What's the deal with these people that continually deny that climate change exists? There are few of them on priuschat that can't seem to absorb any evidence at all that contradicts their opinion. Any psychologists out there that know what this kind of mental deficit is called?

[dogfriend]

The Powerpoint presentation just reinforces what we can already see happening: less snowpack, drier conditions, more wildfires. Thanks, I think.

Its kinda depressing because it looks as though it will get worse even if we stopped polluting right now.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by dogfriend

The Powerpoint presentation just reinforces what we can already see happening: less snowpack, drier conditions, more wildfires. Thanks, I think.

Its kinda depressing because it looks as though it will get worse even if we stopped polluting right now.

If that depresses you then don't ever read the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment report I always post. Haha

[HomeandRanch]

This stuff is being repeated on the MSM. Kudlow was all over it on his program tonight. When he said that I was like , "Damn about time". Serves me right for believing what I see on TV. That is some serious crap reporting.

[richard schumacher]

When more acceptable sources [than Monckton] are revealed, like other APS members, it will make for an interesting debate.

When will we see these "more acceptable" sources? Is someone hiding them, to be revealed at just the right moment?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Godiva

Who do I look to for the facts on Climate Change? Physicists or Climatologists? Decisions, decisions. A single op ed piece or 928 peer reviewed papers?

Oh no. Not the 928 papers again. Do we have to debunk that nonsense again?

First of all, Oreskes is a professor in the dept. of History at UCSD, not a climatologist. Secondly, her "paper" was an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed article. Third, "On 15 December 2004, she [Oreskes] admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay." Basically, she missed about 11,000 papers in her "comprehensive search". Fourth, of the 928 papers she did happen to include, "only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'." Looks like maybe she had a problem with the decimal point.

See link.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

When will we see these "more acceptable" sources? Is someone hiding them, to be revealed at just the right moment?

Maybe you just haven't looked, Richard. Here is somebody who has:

"Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from
Environment Canada where he worked for about 25 years.
Khandekar holds M.Sc degree in Statistics from India and M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in Meteorology from USA. Khandekar has been
in the fields of atmosphere/ocean/climate for over 49 years and has
published over 120 papers, reports, book reviews, scientific
commentaries etc. He has published over 40 peer-reviewed papers
in various international Journals and authored a book on ocean
surface wave analysis and modeling, published by Springer-Verlag
in 1989.

Khandekar is presently on the editorial board of the Journal
Natural Hazards (Netherlands) and is a former editor of the
Journal Climate Research ( Germany). He is also an expert
reviewer for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change) Climate Change Documents (AR4) to be published in
2007."

Here is what he found...

"This Document has examined 69 peer-reviewed papers out of a much larger number that have appeared in various international Journals in the last six years. These papers cover a wide range of topics pertaining to the present debate on the GW science. Most of the papers listed above have questioned the present view of the GW science and when taken together, these papers and many others not listed here provide an emerging view of the science of global warming & climate change which is at odds with the prevailing view."

I'm not saying he is "right" and Oreske's wrong (though arguably he is much more qualified than a history professor). What I'm saying is that there is still much to learn and a great deal of uncertainty in climate science. To characterize the discussion as "settled" (as per Algore) does severe injustice to a large body of evidence to the contrary.

But you don't want to hear anything contrary to your belief set, do you Richard?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

What's the deal with these people that continually deny that climate change exists? There are few of them on priuschat that can't seem to absorb any evidence at all that contradicts their opinion. Any psychologists out there that know what this kind of mental deficit is called?

Some might deny it exists. I would say my position is far more nuanced than that. Climate change has always existed - before and since the rise of man. Man has influenced climate in many ways, no doubt. Anthropogenic CO2 undoubtedly influences climate. However, after years of reading much on the subject, my conclusion is that the affects are not nearly as dramatic as Algore and others claim. 7 meter sea level rise? Puleeze. Even the IPCC, for all it's faults, doesn't believe that. And I could go on.

But trying to discuss it with someone that has "CUT CO2" on their license plate is like arguing against the existence of God with a priest.

Thankfully, psycologists don't call what you have -- or for that matter, what a true "denier" has -- a "mental deficit". They call it "belief".