Jump to content

Menu

What are your beliefs on climate change?


treestarfae
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's a conspiracy.

 

There are secret conclaves of scientists throughout the world who gather to fabricate data regarding human induced climate change. They are sworn to secrecy, never to reveal their own identities nor those of their co-conspirators. They nevertheless manage to to publish their fabricated research reports in respectable peer reviewed journals, under assumed pseudonyms and credentials of course. Through this nefarious deception the so-called scientists are slowly but surely undermining the global economy and the governments of the world; if you dig deep enough you will discover that North Korea is at the back of the whole plot.

 

I do hope you all appreciate that I have put my personal safety in jeapordy in order to expose this conspiracy to you.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a conspiracy.

 

There are secret conclaves of scientists throughout the world who gather to fabricate data regarding human induced climate change. They are sworn to secrecy, never to reveal their own identities nor those of their co-conspirators. They nevertheless manage to to publish their fabricated research reports in respectable peer reviewed journals, under assumed pseudonyms and credentials of course. Through this nefarious deception the so-called scientists are slowly but surely undermining the global economy and the governments of the world; if you dig deep enough you will discover that North Korea is at the back of the whole plot.

 

I do hope you all appreciate that I have put my personal safety in jeapordy in order to expose this conspiracy to you.

 

 

Are you going into a secret underground bunker now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a conspiracy.

 

There are secret conclaves of scientists throughout the world who gather to fabricate data regarding human induced climate change. They are sworn to secrecy, never to reveal their own identities nor those of their co-conspirators. They nevertheless manage to to publish their fabricated research reports in respectable peer reviewed journals, under assumed pseudonyms and credentials of course. Through this nefarious deception the so-called scientists are slowly but surely undermining the global economy and the governments of the world; if you dig deep enough you will discover that North Korea is at the back of the whole plot.o

 

I do hope you all appreciate that I have put my personal safety in jeapordy in order to expose this conspiracy to you.

Man I wish it were as wacky as this. The falsified data and manipulated studies I've seen seem to be about policy control and funding. It definitely makes it harder to trust data on the subject in general when there are significant instances of falsification, and the conclusions are published above the fold but retractions are ten pages back and six months later (that's not unique to climate science, but it's been notable and a lot more expensive if we get into the boondoggles and regulatory strangle that has resulted).

 

As for the list thing, that was a throwaway talking point as far as I can tell - the cognitive effect was acknowledging the base voter's concerns on accountability for a lot of wasteful spending under the dubious heading of climate change and climate policy, not a specific action point. Trump does a lot of that - back to the opposition taking him literally but not seriously and his base taking him seriously but not literally. This is one of those that pretty clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally - it was almost a dog whistle in effect, but not quite.

 

It gets a big shrug from me - I expect actual policy on this topic may involve more accountability and a lot of audits, but not some sort of thought crime by association list. That is neither the point nor effective for what some of his voters are angry about. But that's just my take as someone who doesn't buy into the Trump-as-Hitler paradigm.

 

Edited to catch phone typos and I probably still missed a few

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the list thing, that was a throwaway talking point as far as I can tell - the cognitive effect was acknowledging the base voter's concerns on accountability for a lot of wasteful spending under the dubious heading of climate change and climate policy, not a specific action point. Trump does a lot of that - back to the opposition taking him literally but not seriously and his base taking him seriously but not literally. This is one of those that pretty clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally - it was almost a dog whistle in effect, but not quite.

 

It gets a big shrug from me - I expect actual policy on this topic may involve more accountability and a lot of audits, but not some sort of thought crime by association list. That is neither the point nor effective for what wome of his voters are angry about. But that's just my take as someone who doesn't buy into the Trump-as-Hitler paradigm.

No. No no no.  We don't get to shrug off dog whistles or gas lighting or throw away talking points. He MUST says what he means and mean what he says now, and no one should explain away his doing otherwise.

Edited by Susan Wise Bauer
Without the namecalling, please.
  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's not the way he communicates. Can't help you there, it is what it is, especially in the shorter talking points and sound bytes. The comments issued in these meetings that have been reported by people even like Bezos and Jim Brown are quite a lot different in character along with that context.

 

I don't love it as a communication style but it's his thing and he has toned it down but likely won't eliminate it. That doesn't make it not true, no matter how much you hate it. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (the electorate) have a responsibility to hold him accountable for what he says. If you accept his lies, his exaggerations, and his verbal abuse as normal then YOU are culpable for what happens as a result.

Nope, I don't really see them that way. I hear the same things you do and yet have an entirely different response and paradigm to which I fit them. It causes me no angst on topics like this at all, because I just don't respond the same way and see no threat as much as a wink and a nod to an underlying point.

 

I'm not his keeper and he isn't taking my emails or advice, so my calls for calm, conservative, and sobermindedness have been summarily ignored. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, I don't really see them that way. I hear the same things you do and yet have an entirely different response and paradigm to which I fit them. It causes me no angst on topics like this at all, because I just don't respond the same way and see no threat as much as a wink and a nod to an underlying point.

 

.

Then you aren't paying attention.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "belief" is that we do not have enough data to predict climate change in the future. 110 years of data cannot predict what will happen in another 100, 200 or 500 years. 60 years ago, media was in a frenzy that we were having global cooling and a new ice age was coming.

We have millennia of data thanks to fossil records, core samples, geological deposits, even tree rings.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "belief" is that we do not have enough data to predict climate change in the future.  110 years of data cannot predict what will happen in another 100, 200 or 500 years.  60 years ago, media was in a frenzy that we were having global cooling and a new ice age was coming. 

 

Science is self correcting. New and better data and significantly better modelling capabilities (due to high powered computing.) 

 

We used to think lead paint was great. So what? I wouldn't recommend you painting a baby crib with it. Because scientists have learned something since then. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have millennia of data thanks to fossil records, core samples, geological deposits, even tree rings.

Although most of this data just shows us the natural climate fluctuations that make up the history of the earth; they don't help us so much with predicting the course of human-influenced changes.

 

The problem is that we can't really afford to sit around indefinitely waiting for data to come in on the impact of modern human activity; by the time we know for sure the worst (or best!) case scenario it will be too late--we can't undo what is already done. We do need to take the data we have so far and our model projections and make the best policy decisions we can with it.

 

And whatever we do needs to have a worldwide component. Creating incentives for conservation and other environmentally friendly efforts in the world's developing economies is going to be even more critical than implementing such measures here at home.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although most of this data just shows us the natural climate fluctuations that make up the history of the earth; they don't help us so much with predicting the course of human-influenced changes.

 

The problem is that we can't really afford to sit around indefinitely waiting for data to come in on the impact of modern human activity; by the time we know for sure the worst (or best!) case scenario it will be too late--we can't undo what is already done. We do need to take the data we have so far and our model projections and make the best policy decisions we can with it.

 

And whatever we do needs to have a worldwide component. Creating incentives for conservation and other environmentally friendly efforts in the world's developing economies is going to be even more critical than implementing such measures here at home.

True. My thoughts were going in the direction that we do have data points that inform the modeling science uses. The models show us that what is happening is completely unpredicted based on historical cycles...cycles that can be tracked back more than 110 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinions on climate change is that it's a real thing, humans are contributing to it but we need to take action even if we are not the cause, and we are using fossil fuels beyond replacement rate so we need to look at other technologies regardless.

 

 

Which can be an issue given that not all scientific papers are available to the public. Access is definitely a problem.

 

 

Yes, and let's not forget Aaron Swartz and what happened to him before he took his own life at 26:

 

 

On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested by MIT police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after connecting a computer to the MIT network in an unmarked and unlocked closet, and setting it to download academic journal articles systematically from JSTOR using a guest user account issued to him by MIT.[11][12] Federal prosecutors later charged him with two counts of wire fraud and eleven violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,[13] carrying a cumulative maximum penalty of $1 million in fines, 35 years in prison, asset forfeiturerestitution, and supervised release.[14]

 

 

 

 

Seems to me that if a government-paid scientist is that horrified by the thought of ever talking to the prez, he should send out some resumes (and probably already has).

 

Still thinking of zebras when you hear hoofbeats, seems to me.

 

Well that's not the way he communicates. Can't help you there, it is what it is, especially in the shorter talking points and sound bytes. The comments issued in these meetings that have been reported by people even like Bezos and Jim Brown are quite a lot different in character along with that context.

 

I think you would agree that if we hold a person responsible for his words and the consequences of them, he may think more before he speaks so flippantly. I was under the impression you were big on holding people accountable and on personal responsibility, and would not plead a special case for someone simply because he's a celebrity or you like his ideas. Frankly I am surprised because you are normally so consistent.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idnib - he isn't taking my calls or emails - if he were I'd totally tell him off.

 

I can explain what happened and what will continue to happen but can't change it myself, and realize now after months of this what kind of communication pattern it is. This was something much discussed from the early primary - he will do and say what he will, and the actions will fall where they do, which has consistently been on the unscary side when the rubber hits the road.

 

I believe he is serious on this topic, but I have zero evidence from his conduct and words thus far to believe he is being literal on it. If I thought he was being literal in this I'd be concerned too, but at this point that's not what his own history suggests.

 

I'm accountable for my own words and actions but can't do anything about his. The limited gaggle of actions he as accumulated thus far in this early stage are very encouraging compared to his words - so I'm going with it as a probable pattern until he proves otherwise - that is most fair and I'm completely comfortable with it as a morally and intellectually consistent position I am confident defending. And maybe one of these days he'll take my advice and become a communicator of gravitas. I haven't seen any flying pork though....

 

And if the consequences here are rounding up of scientists, and jailing or disappearing them, I'm first in line with my guns with my spouse and our posse. You can hold me to it :D

 

I feel like we need to pick a Hitler signal, some really specific emoji, and you ladies can message it to me on the sly if Trump heads that way. Hmm....

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

Two F5 tornadoes hit my hometown.

 

I was convinced before then but that had me at the point where I became more fanatical about it.

 

Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two F5 tornadoes hit my hometown.

Ouch! Is that unusual for the area? Where my family lives that deals with tornados (Oklahoma) it's typical weather for the state and their particular corridor, and has been as long as records are kept. They still suck though :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch! Is that unusual for the area? Where my family lives that deals with tornados (Oklahoma) it's typical weather for the state and their particular corridor, and has been as long as records are kept. They still suck though :(

 

 

I am from Oklahoma, tornadoes are normal F5s are not normal and it isn't normal for two to hit the same town.

 

We had a tornado here in SC recently and everyone was freaking out but I was out shopping :lol: "It's just a wee little tornado!!" 

 

Tornadoes are not unusual, very large and very violent tornadoes are.

Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Severity does matter (we get a chuckle at transplants freaking out over earthquakes up here like a 5.0 is a big deal) - were they being linked to climate by a particular scientist or journal or did you have some evidence a changing climate made them more severe? Or more just a general feeling from a lot of other evidence plus that?

Edited by Arctic Mama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

I was never unconvinced, but a couple of things drove it home for me.

 

I was paying attention to it for maybe a decade before An Inconvenient Truth made me pay much more attention. I don't wish to argue the merits of the film; I'm simply answering the question you posed. A couple of years later, after hearing some of the controversy surrounding some claims in the film, I dug down some more and read a well-known paper by Dr. James Hansen et al: Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Luckily, it is freely available to anyone here. More papers of his are at this link. Since then I've read a lot of material, but those two things happening a couple of years apart jump-started my serious concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Severity does matter (we get a chuckle at transplants freaking out over earthquakes up here like a 5.0 is a big deal) - were they being linked to climate or did you have some evidence a changing climate made them more severe? Or more just a general feeling from a lot of other evidence plus that?

 

 It isn't very common where there are a lot of tornado deaths in OK simply because people know what to do but they do seem to be getting worse. An F5 can hit Oklahoma population centers and kill fewer people than in many other states simply because Oklahomans know exactly what is going on, much like Alaska and earthquakes, but it does mess things all up. 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/extreme-tornado-outbreaks-are-getting-worse-why

 

And I get that Oklahoma was not that populated that long ago so it might not be terribly easy to tell but they can tell something is going on but they are not sure what.

 

I have a relative that works at the severe storm lab and so that is something that is normal dinner conversation. They cannot tell that it is from climate change and the article I linked states that. 

 

They don't know, meteorologists are studying it but they don't have an answer yet.

Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we need to pick a Hitler signal, some really specific emoji, and you ladies can message it to me on the sly if Trump heads that way. Hmm....

 

I would give anything to have a way to clearly determine when things head in that type of direction and to send a clear signal, but I doubt it works that way. Therein lies the problem and the need for vigilance. Check the link in my signature.

Edited by idnib
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another article.

 

http://www.i4u.com/2016/12/118375/tornado-outbreaks-us-are-getting-worse-no-one-know-why 

“We've used new statistical tools that haven't been used before to put tornadoes under the microscope. The findings are surprising. We found that, over the last half century or so, the more extreme the tornado outbreaks, the faster the numbers of such extreme outbreaks have been increasing,†said co-author Joel Cohen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I commend them for it.

 

ETA: And at the very core, these demands are extremely dangerous to science. Scientific inquiry cannot proceed if scientists are not allowed to discover whatever their investigations yield. If a desired outcome is stipulated up front, that is not science.

 

I am out of likes but appreciate the comment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like we need to pick a Hitler signal, some really specific emoji, and you ladies can message it to me on the sly if Trump heads that way. Hmm....

 

I don't want to get super political in here, but I'll give you some general advice.

 

First of all, even if you think we're all loons, go and get your passport. It's better to have it and not need it, as they say. (Not that having a passport will save you from climate change, but it's always useful to be able to leave the country.) Also, make sure you have your medications, your pets and children have their vaccinations, everybody's medical and educational records are available. This is all basic stuff, and while it will almost certainly never be necessary you'd certainly feel silly if it was necessary and you didn't have it!

 

Second, read the news. And since I know it's hard to tell how much of the news is your own bias, I really suggest you stick to the newswires: Reuters, The Associated Press, and the AFP. Their stories get picked up by Fox News. Their stories get picked up by The Washington Post. They pretty much have to be neutral and unbiased because they expect anybody and everybody to pick up their stories :)

 

I assume that if we here at WTM are able to tell you "Shoot, you need to go like fifteen minutes ago!" then it would've been in the news already. Unless, I suppose, there's enormous suppression of the media. That's one of the chief defining features of fascism. But you probably would have noticed that if you're following the news like I just told you to!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno the funny thing about the US Press is if one paper gets their press credentials taken away the rest all report on it.

 

If one googles, "Washington Post loses credentials Trump" you will get about a hundred stories from other papers who printed it, even the Conservative papers were scolding him. :lol:

 

I don't know if someone could attack our press fast enough to prevent a complete and utter breakdown. Because it won't be Democrats who freak out the worst, it will be Libertarians who would freak out the most and NO ONE WANTS LIBERTARIANS FREAKING OUT. They aren't even "Oh no! Save the Republic! " they are all "BURN IT ALL!! BURN IT ALL DOWN!!"

Edited by Slartibartfast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno the funny thing about the US Press is if one paper gets their press credentials taken away the rest all report on it.

 

It's not just the US press. All journalists everywhere agree on one subject, and that's that they need to support journalistic freedom and integrity. If they think that's under attack anywhere, then they're sure it's under attack everywhere and they are dutybound to report on their imperiled colleagues, even if really they hate them and everything (else) they stand for.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just the US press. All journalists everywhere agree on one subject, and that's that they need to support journalistic freedom and integrity. If they think that's under attack anywhere, then they're sure it's under attack everywhere and they are dutybound to report on their imperiled colleagues, even if really they hate them and everything (else) they stand for.

I did google that and found several international papers had reported on Trump taking away Washington Post's credentials as well. :lol:

 

I like it, it seems like they are all cuddly occasionally even though they are usually pushing each other down and shoving each other's face in the dirt.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

Are you doubting that the planet's climate is changing?  Because honestly, that part really isn't debated much among knowledgeable people.  Our carbon dioxide levels are increasing.  The Top 10 Hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998 with 2015 being the hottest, 2014 in second and Livescience.com is saying that 2016 is on track to beat both.  Storms and droughts are becoming more common and more ferocious (though the storms don't always hit land, of course).  Locally to us I can see that the leaves are changing later each year (we geocached when the kids were here - we have pics of peak leaf peeping) and temps I consider nice (to me) are far more common later in the year.  We also have set a couple of storm records locally in the past couple of years - for snowfalls.

 

I don't doubt the climate is changing at all.

 

What knowledgeable people usually debate (in my circles anyway) is whether human activity makes a difference, what will happen due to the change (what areas will become deserts, sea levels, etc), and whether we can fix it even if we (all) decided to.

 

I happen to believe humans have a part in it.  With 7+ billion people on this planet, how do we not?  When one sees the levels of human caused pollution in our atmosphere (literally sees it as in China, etc, as well as tests done around crowds of humans vs volcanoes and other natural sources), how can one think it wouldn't have an effect?  

 

What happens in the future?  None of us know.  It's the future.  It's like predicting a horse race.  We have ideas, but until they actually run... there's only odds... and odds can be unreliable.

 

Can we fix it?  I'd like to try, but not just for climate change reasons.  I want clean air.  I want clean water (drinking to oceans).  I want pollution-free food.  I hate even garbage on the road or cigarette butts on the ground.

 

I want my kids to inherit a nice planet.  I guess I'm pretty selfish... but there you have it.  When we move to the Caribbean, we're keeping some of the predictions in mind if we buy a place.  It would seem crazy not to IMO and from what I've seen happening IRL in VA, FL, and even around us.

Edited by creekland
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

When I was a kid I remember 1 day that hit 40c (104f). Now we have several days like that most summers. One day hit 46c (114f).

 

That's just anecdotal and it could just be part of a larger climate cycle that we don't understand. But it's definitely happening and bushfires etc are becoming more intense and frequent seemingly.

 

That's one part. I grew up with the science as part of science ed. so it's not sort of some new thing to understand. Obviously climate change has always been a feature of life on earth. Various stuff animals do affects their microclimates so it makes sense that human activity will as well. whether it ends up working out exactly as the scientists suggest remains to be seen but moving towards renewables has other benefits aside from climate issues, so it seems to make sense to pursue solar, wind, geothermal, hydro. In Aus we have plenty of sun so it makes sense to use it if we can.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

The book I mentioned upthread, Physics for Future Presidents, does a nice job of explaining the underlying science and also differentiates between media hype and actual scientific evidence. I think you would find the book enjoyable and informative. It was published I think in 2008, so not entirely up to date but close.

 

I listened to it on Audible while cleaning the house and driving. The book didn't convince me that climate change was happening as I already accepted the scientific consensus, but it did help me understand better the actual physical processes driving it as well as the limitations on our understanding of those processes and therefor our ability to project with accuracy the future course of events.

 

I actually do think it would be a good book for any President elect to read.

 

I have to say I can see nothing but hubris in those who, without taking years to study the underlying processes, data, and complex modeling that goes into climate science, presume to dismiss as somehow irrelevant or uninformed the overwhelming conclusions of the community of scientists who have made this their life's work. No, science does not provide us with perfect and complete answers, it is limited by available data and our ability to interpret that data accurately, but it really is the best method we have for understanding our physical world.

Edited by maize
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to say thank you to whomever mentioned getting vaccines of pets up to date, just in case. I totally hadn't thought of that one! We did get passports, and the humans are up to date on vaccines, but I need to double check the pets and their rabies vaccines. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belief does strike me as odd here, but I know many people who don't "believe" in many things I consider to be fact, so...

 

I "believe" the climate is changing and human actions are part of the reason, based on reading the scientific evidence. Maybe some things are classified (I'm not a climate scientist for sure, so I don't really know about these details), but what is publicly available in respected journals is enough to convince me.

 

I also believe -- unless we find a political or technological "miracle" that helps us out of this box --  the toll (both in terms of individual humans and in terms of entire other species) is likely to be enormous. But that some humans will profit enormously on resulting misery. I didn't need to read a scientific journal to "believe" that -- I think that's pretty much just history.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you doubting that the planet's climate is changing?  Because honestly, that part really isn't debated much among knowledgeable people.

 

Of course the climate is changing.  It always has and always will.

 

Our carbon dioxide levels are increasing..

 

As a direct result on this increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere, the Earth is greening rapidly: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds:

 

The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

 

 

This greening is a very good thing for living things on the planet Earth.

 

The link between carbon dioxide and global temperatures is MUCH harder to make since it is such a minor effect.

 

As I have previously noted, the temperatures on Earth are regulated by the oceans, which have a heat capacity of 2100 times that of the atmosphere.  ONLY sunlight can heat the water in the oceans from above (there is a very small contribution from underwater volcanic activity).  This heating is modulated by global cloud cover.

 

The ONLY influence CO2 has on the temperature of the Earth's oceans is that it ever-so-slightly reduces the loss of heat from the ocean surface.  This effect is so small that it is unmeasurable and is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that of clouds.  As a result of all the additional CO2 the top 1 micron of the surface of the ocean is less cool than it would otherwise by about only 0.0005K.

 

Clouds are what control the temperature of the Earth's oceans since they directly modulate the amount of longwave sunlight which is heating the waters of the oceans.  But does the global cloud cover change enough to affect the Earth's temperature?  Yes!  In fact, the temperature of the Earth tracks the global cloud cover inversely:

 

HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP

 

There is a bit more to the picture, since ONLY the surface of the ocean touches the atmosphere, so ocean currents that overturn water in the ocean have a very important impact on the temperatures of the Earth, both locally and globally.  That is why El Ninos and La Ninas have so much impact on our planet.

 

The Top 10 Hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998 with 2015 being the hottest, 2014 in second and Livescience.com is saying that 2016 is on track to beat both.

 

It's true.  Even the satellite measurements of (which cover every cubic inch of our atmosphere) temperature indicate that 2016 will be the warmest year on record.  But the idea that this is somehow due to CO2 is quite nonsensical since the massive jump in temperatures during the past two years is due to one of the largest El Ninos on record.  The energy released from the oceans into the atmosphere during an El Nino comes from the sun, period.  As seen above, CO2 has no role in the heating of the oceans and virtually no role in the cooling of the oceans.

 

 

 

AStorms and droughts are becoming more common and more ferocious (though the storms don't always hit land, of course).

 

Not according to the scientific data collected on this topic:

 

Tornadoes:

 

According to NOAA, the last five years years have been below average with  2013 was the year for the lowest number of tornadoes and 2014 and this year roughly tied for second and third lowest

 

Hurricanes:

 

The number of U.S. hurricanes is steadily dropping as CO2 levels increase:

 

ScreenHunter_3463-Oct.-14-21.59.gif

 

It is not at all surprising to see global cyclones get less frequent since heat engines operate from a DIFFERENCE in temperature.  Since the Arctic has warmed while there has been little-to-no warming at the equator, the differences in temperature have been dropping.  This is probably why the most deadly hurricane on record (?) occurred in 1970 at the height of the ice-ace scare, killing as many as a half-million souls.

 

Drought:

 

According to this paper in Nature, the fraction of the globe in droughts of all levels of severity has been steadily dropping as CO2 levels have been steadily rising:

 

sdata20141-f5.jpg

 

This is not a surprising result considering the massive amount of greening which is occurring a direct result of CO2 fertilization.

 

What knowledgeable people usually debate (in my circles anyway) is whether human activity makes a difference, what will happen due to the change (what areas will become deserts, sea levels, etc), and whether we can fix it even if we (all) decided to.

 

I happen to believe humans have a part in it.  With 7+ billion people on this planet, how do we not?  When one sees the levels of human caused pollution in our atmosphere (literally sees it as in China, etc, as well as tests done around crowds of humans vs volcanoes and other natural sources), how can one think it wouldn't have an effect?

 

No argument.  Humans absolutely have an effect on the planet.  I think two of the biggest effects is urban heat island effect, (which is much of what we see in the surface temperature record) and impacts on water.  Here is an excellent speech which details the issue with drought that CA is facing, detailing many of the influences man has on that situation

 

Can we fix it?  I'd like to try, but not just for climate change reasons.  I want clean air.  I want clean water (drinking to oceans).  I want pollution-free food.  I hate even garbage on the road or cigarette butts on the ground.

 

I want my kids to inherit a nice planet.  I guess I'm pretty selfish... but there you have it.

 

Amen!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man I wish it were as wacky as this. The falsified data and manipulated studies I've seen seem to be about policy control and funding. It definitely makes it harder to trust data on the subject in general when there are significant instances of falsification, and the conclusions are published above the fold but retractions are ten pages back and six months later (that's not unique to climate science, but it's been notable and a lot more expensive if we get into the boondoggles and regulatory strangle that has resulted).

 

As for the list thing, that was a throwaway talking point as far as I can tell - the cognitive effect was acknowledging the base voter's concerns on accountability for a lot of wasteful spending under the dubious heading of climate change and climate policy, not a specific action point. Trump does a lot of that - back to the opposition taking him literally but not seriously and his base taking him seriously but not literally. This is one of those that pretty clearly wasn't meant to be taken literally - it was almost a dog whistle in effect, but not quite.

 

It gets a big shrug from me - I expect actual policy on this topic may involve more accountability and a lot of audits, but not some sort of thought crime by association list. That is neither the point nor effective for what some of his voters are angry about. But that's just my take as someone who doesn't buy into the Trump-as-Hitler paradigm.

 

Edited to catch phone typos and I probably still missed a few

 

I find this all fascinating, given that Trump has never held back in punishing anyone who displeases him or messes with his ego.  Look what he did to the steel workers union leader. A throwaway talking point? 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

I don't know if this makes sense and I will probably appall many posters, but I pay less attention to climate change and far more attention to what humans do to their environment.

 

We know that we affect air quality. That can't be denied.

 

We know that we affect water quality. That can't be denied.

 

We know that we can change the landscape. That can't be denied

 

We know that we are using natural resources at a rate faster than can be sustained. That can't be denied.

 

All of those things pose enormous threats to the quality of life for humans and other forms of life.

 

The push for climate change denial for the next four years must happen and it must be on a large scale to be in keeping with this administration's agenda, which is to unleash and deregulate corporations.  If there is no climate change (remember that in many people's minds climate change is synonymous with environmental protection), then there is no reason to have regulations for air quality, water quality, or land use.  Consumers do not need to change their consumption patterns.

 

The renewed and escalating anti-climate change campaign is the precursor to deregulation.  It's setting the stage.

 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of climate change - this might need a spinoff thread but I'm asking in all seriousness what convinced each of you? Was there one tipping point or study that did it? A conglomeration of a specific type and/or volume of evidence? Dawning realization after a couple years of hearing about it?

 

I'd read a fair bit about it that made sense.  Then I went to a lecture from a retired Professor Emeritus of physical geography.  It was in a village hall with no media present, he had no grants to maintain, was happily retired with no fear of loss of tenure.  And his description of Scotland was shot through with his expectations of climate change.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ONLY influence CO2 has on the temperature of the Earth's oceans is that it ever-so-slightly reduces the loss of heat from the ocean surface.  This effect is so small that it is unmeasurable and is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that of clouds.  As a result of all the additional CO2 the top 1 micron of the surface of the ocean is less cool than it would otherwise by about only 0.0005K.

 

Did you read that entire link you posted? It pretty much says what the rest of us here are saying, that CO2 matters. You can talk about what a small amount of temperature change it is, and how it doesn't go very deep, but taken as a whole the amount of additional energy in the system is very large. The global temperature was not much colder ~20k years ago, but what we know as Boston was then buried under ice.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like hearing where the tipping point for each of you is because it helps me understand your perspective better - nothing sinister about it, just context for the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read that entire link you posted? It pretty much says what the rest of us here are saying, that CO2 matters. You can talk about what a small amount of temperature change it is, and how it doesn't go very deep, but taken as a whole the amount of additional energy in the system is very large. The global temperature was not much colder ~20k years ago, but what we know as Boston was then buried under ice.

 

The belief that CO2 is significant can ONLY be supported by ignoring the tiny value of the forcing and claiming that the percent of global cloud cover does not change.  But we have the data:  global cloud cover DROPPED approximately 3% during the 1990s, equating to an additional amount of LONGWAVE forcing that is about 10 W/m2.  At that time, the SHORTWAVE forcing from CO2 was on the the order of 0.3 W/m2.  In other words, the effect of CO2 was about 1/30th of the forcing due to the change in the cloud cover and completely unable to penetrate the surface of the oceans.  This is the clear reason why the global average temperature closely tracks the global cloud cover.

 

The tiny amount of warming that will come from CO2 if we ever DO get to a doubling will be a welcome benefit to life on Earth, especially when combined with the greening and drought protection that comes with the increase in CO2 concentration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...