Bad news from El Nino and climate change

[TheLurch]

The whole DDT thing turns out to have been false. Population turnarounds resulted from other actions. 'Silent Spring' turns out to have been wrong. DDT did not cause the shells of eggs to be thinner and more fragile. Sure some action shave been good. It is a long jump from not pouring garbage and toxins in rivers, to changing the weather.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your DDT information? I'm curious because it doesn't appear to be accurate.

See:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...08440091159176

[Andius]

And in a couple hundred billion years the Milky Way Galaxy will be colliding with another galaxy (the Greater Magellanic Cloud?). Scientists are studying ways to stop this cataclysmic collision.

If mankind continues to be around during that time within the Milky Way, I don't think even a collision of galaxies would be too catastrophic I think (it's more of a blend, not so much a collision), if anything, it might mean a greater number of star systems at closer reach to colonize. ^^

[Cow Poke]

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your DDT information? I'm curious because it doesn't appear to be accurate.

See:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...08440091159176

Something like this?

[TheLurch]

Something like this?

Could be. Not peer reviewed literature, but the name "American Council on Science and Health" sure sounds impressive, doesn't it?

Worth reading up on them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nce_and_Health

Which gives me mixed feelings. I find society's fear of "chemicals" to be absurd - everything on Earth's a chemical, and many human made chemicals are far safer than natural ones. But it seems this group has a pretty clear agenda.

[Cow Poke]

Could be. Not peer reviewed literature, but the name "American Council on Science and Health" sure sounds impressive, doesn't it?

Well, you don't expect them to name themselves "The consumer education consortium on food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health", would you?

Worth reading up on them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...nce_and_Health

Which gives me mixed feelings. I find society's fear of "chemicals" to be absurd - everything on Earth's a chemical, and many human made chemicals are far safer than natural ones. But it seems this group has a pretty clear agenda.

Perhaps.

[TheLurch]

Well, you don't expect them to name themselves "The consumer education consortium on food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health", would you?

Pretty much all these groups are "Americans that think they know better than you." It's just that none of them will admit it.

[shunyadragon]

Understood, but that sure adds to the "boy who cried wolf" factor. There have been a number of dire predictions (Al Gore is King of these, of course) that really hurt the narrative.

This does not work with long term hurricane predictions. This is an evaluation of the data from actual and present El Nino history.

[shunyadragon]

That's the thing: annual hurricane predictions have nothing to do with climate science. I mean, the climate affects them, in that warmer ocean water could alter a given year's forecasts. But an annual hurricane forecast won't really use the same information as climate studies, and doesn't rely on the same methods. It isn't done by the same people, either.

So, this "hurting the narrative" is a bit like saying that your college football team's play hurts the narrative of your favorite hockey team. Yes, they're both sports, but...

The challenge is that i wouldn't expect you or anyone else to know any of that. And i can see where pointing that out will come across to some people (those predisposed not to believe it) as making excuses. Which hurts the narrative too. It feels frustratingly like a no-win situation.


Separately, yes, it is bad that some people feel licensed to phrase things as concrete predictions. Situations like the climate always come with a range of possible future outcomes, because the climate doesn't behave like classical Newtonian physics. And there's always the potential for unforeseeable events that mess with the predictions, from a string of La Nińas to a huge volcanic eruption.


EDIT: Side note that may interest only me. Instead of Newtonian physics, my first instinct was to say particle physics. But it turns out that particle physics is a bit more similar to climate science. Because of quantum mechanics' lack of determinism, anything you do with particles always has a range of possible outcomes. So, it turned out to be one of the worst examples i could possibly think of.

This a description of fractal math and the relationship of systems with many factors like weather.

[Cow Poke]

This does not work with long term hurricane predictions. This is an evaluation of the data from actual and present El Nino history.

And, once again, I point out - it's all about perception. The alarmists (not saying that all climate scientists are alarmists) have done such a horrible job that audience they need to reach just yawns when they come up with more doom scenarios.

[shunyadragon]

Look, i can't change your perceptions for you. And i think that an endless parade of doomsday prophecies is stupid and exaggerated too.

But some of these things aren't problems purely because we acted. There are now hawks and falcons living in New York City because the populations have boomed since we restricted DDT. The Hudson is clean enough that it's safe to swim in it. Acid rain is no longer a problem in the lakes and forests upstate. I can literally see the differences around me, having lived in the area for roughly 50 years.

So, my question is what would change your perceptions on something in a way that convinced you that it's worth acting on?

Like TheLurch, I am equally curious about your sources for your claims. TheLurch's source appears to conflict with your claims.

[Cow Poke]

Like TheLurch, I am equally curious about your sources for your claims. TheLurch's source appears to conflict with your claims.

Might help to identify who "your" claims refers to.

[Jedidiah]

Something like this?

Not specifically where I got it, but the same information.

[Jedidiah]

Could be. Not peer reviewed literature, but the name "American Council on Science and Health" sure sounds impressive, doesn't it?

Since it was not a scientific study it would not be peer reviewed. Some of the information could well have come from peer reviewed material.

[shunyadragon]

Might help to identify who "your" claims refers to.

My mistake, I meant to respond to Jedidiah's claims.

[shunyadragon]

Since it was not a scientific study it would not be peer reviewed. Some of the information could well have come from peer reviewed material.

Careful making controversial claims without good references.