Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[MatskiMonk]

There is overwhelming evidence that there is climate change and that there is global warming, but can someone direct me to facts on to how much human activities are contributing to this?

According to EDL energy, which is one of the first ones that came up in google, this is the case..

Though natural amounts of carbon dioxide have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today’s levels are around400 ppm. That’s 40% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years.

We also can tell that the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil because the chemical composition of the carbon dioxide contains a unique fingerprint.

I'd be out of my depth giving much of an explanation but scientists can analyse CO2 by it's Isotopes.... essentially all CO2 is not the same, so they can at least determine how much CO2 may or may not have been generated by burning fossil fuels by looking for Carbon 14 (or lack of).

 

[Dotini]

A little global warming seems a small price to pay for the benefits of the industrial revolution. And much of the world awaits their turn to burn through their own industrial revolution.

 

[Denur]

Google Scholar is a good place to start. There's a site called SkepticalScience that responds to various claims by those who don't believe that humans are now playing a massive role in climate change

Most of the site responds to believes that the climate is not changing. A small part addresses the human impact. This video is a good watch.

No doubt that the increase of greenhouse gasses is the culprit, but he didn't address whether or not we are solely, or in large part, responsible for this increase.

According to EDL energy, which is one of the first ones that came up in google, this is the case..

I'd be out of my depth giving much of an explanation but scientists can analyse CO2 by it's Isotopes.... essentially all CO2 is not the same, so they can at least determine how much CO2 may or may not have been generated by burning fossil fuels by looking for Carbon 14 (or lack of).

This is much more convincing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

but he didn't address whether or not we are solely, or in large part, responsible for this increase.

Not solely responsible but responsible in a large part. The CO2 rises really do speak for themselves, I think.

 

[Johnnypenso]

A little global warming seems a small price to pay for the benefits of the industrial revolution. And much of the world awaits their turn to burn through their own industrial revolution.

Is that you Freeman? Careful though, according to some you are a communist for holding that belief:

 

[Denur]

Not solely responsible but responsible in a large part. The CO2 rises really do speak for themselves, I think.

See @MatskiMonk's reply above.

 

[RC45]

A little global warming seems a small price to pay for the benefits of the industrial revolution. And much of the world awaits their turn to burn through their own industrial revolution.

/thread

 

[Famine]

A deal has been reached, it seems, at the climate change conference to limit global CO2 emissions to cap off the peak temperature rise. India is not especially happy at the concept, as, according to their statements, it gives too much control to richer countries at the expense of developing nations like India.


That's nuclear-nation India, with its state space program.

 

[Denur]

Some more details about the agreement: source

On 12 December 2015 the participating 196 countries agreed by consensus to the final draft of a global pact to reduce emissions as part of the method for reducing greenhouse gas. In the 12-page Paris Agreement, the members agreed to reduce their carbon output "as soon as possible" and to do their best to keep global warming "to well below 2 degrees C". France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said this "ambitious and balanced" plan was a "historic turning point" in the goal of reducing global warming.

Still some vague terms.

Also:

The pact is not legally binding until the countries who produce 55% of the world's greenhouse gas formally ratify the Agreement. There is doubt whether some, like the US, will agree to do so. Although President Barack Obama praised the pact, the Republican dominated United States Congress may not ratify it.

 

[Danoff]

A deal has been reached, it seems, at the climate change conference to limit global CO2 emissions to cap off the peak temperature rise. India is not especially happy at the concept, as, according to their statements, it gives too much control to richer countries at the expense of developing nations like India.


That's nuclear-nation India, with its state space program.

It's all about the haves and the haves-less.

 

[unit-one]

Not sure about the global warming, but the climate changed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not sure about the global warming, but the climate changed.

Climate change theory confirmed

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm listening to a podcast as I type this. They are interviewing a woman who made an independent movie about GMOs done in a Erin Brokovitch kind of style. After moving beyond discussing the usual GMOs are bad stuff she took a tangent into industrial farming contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

This reminds me of the over population scares from the 80s. We found new ways to produce food in order to stay ahead of the population growth. I'd love to know how she suggests we address this.

We could reduce food production and, again, say screw any hope for developing nations. She talked about more traditional and sustainable farming methods. That would require a large amount of land. People already complain about deforestation for farming.

I've only ever thought about the climate change policies negatively affecting economic growth. Attacking the food supply (which also affects the economy) is a whole new level.

Is there a way to reach desired greenhouse emissions goals without basically telling the developing world they have to wait?

I'm reminded of the DDT issue. We argue over nature vs 1st world issues, but never think about lives lost in developing nations.

 

[RC45]

I'm listening to a podcast as I type this. They are interviewing a woman who made an independent movie about GMOs done in a Erin Brokovitch kind of style. After moving beyond discussing the usual GMOs are bad stuff she took a tangent into industrial farming contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

This reminds me of the over population scares from the 80s. We found new ways to produce food in order to stay ahead of the population growth. I'd love to know how she suggests we address this.

We could reduce food production and, again, say screw any hope for developing nations. She talked about more traditional and sustainable farming methods. That would require a large amount of land. People already complain about deforestation for farming.

I've only ever thought about the climate change policies negatively affecting economic growth. Attacking the food supply (which also affects the economy) is a whole new level.

Is there a way to reach desired greenhouse emissions goals without basically telling the developing world they have to wait?

I'm reminded of the DDT issue. We argue over nature vs 1st world issues, but never think about lives lost in developing nations.

What the MMGW crowd do not understand is that the developing world is not going to take being told to scurry back to their mud huts, lying down.

The very same "global village" that lets these pompous jackwagons meet and circle jerk about saving the world is the very same "global village" that shows the developing nations what they are being excluded from - abundant energy, comfort, food, high standard of living and prosperity.

Liberals the world over have summarily sentenced the "have-nots" of the planet to prolonged poverty.

 

[niky]

There's a big difference between being a realist about the effects of climate change and being a GMO/Industrial-complex conspiracy nut.

Funny thing is... shying away from industrial level farming, which is more energy efficient, benefits those mud hut dwellers... as developing nations can't compete with large industrial western farms. So, no, that is not a contradiction.

What is a contradiction is that "organic" food is more expensive to grow than GMO crops, which hurts developing market consumers. And inefficient production simply won't allow them to keep up with growing demand.

And the hypocrisy of the organic movement is most readily apparent in the fact that they also use pesticides and herbicides.

Cyanide is all-natural, do note.

 

[Johnnypenso]

There's a big difference between being a realist about the effects of climate change and being a GMO/Industrial-complex conspiracy nut.

Funny thing is... shying away from industrial level farming, which is more energy efficient, benefits those mud hut dwellers... as developing nations can't compete with large industrial western farms. So, no, that is not a contradiction.

What is a contradiction is that "organic" food is more expensive to grow than GMO crops, which hurts developing market consumers. And inefficient production simply won't allow them to keep up with growing demand.

And the hypocrisy of the organic movement is most readily apparent in the fact that they also use pesticides and herbicides.

Cyanide is all-natural, do note.

90% of all organic pesticide use is in the form of Bt proteins. Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested. There are many different strains of Bt used, each specific to different insects. Because Bt is species specific, beneficial and non-target insects are usually not harmed.

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_safety.html

Organic farmers are only supposed to use natural pesticides as a last resort. Most of the local farmers around here and in Kitchener/Waterloo are very passionate about what they do and use crop rotation, planting habitats for beneficial predators and good soil to control bug for harmful critters. Doesn't mean it's the ideal thing for the Third World because it isn't at this point, but I'm glad I have the option to purchase both local and organic food.

 

[niky]

90% of all organic pesticide use is in the form of Bt proteins. Bt proteins are allowed in organic farming as a insecticide because Bt is a natural, non-pathogenic bacterium that is found naturally in the soil. Bt has also been found to be safe to all higher animals tested. There are many different strains of Bt used, each specific to different insects. Because Bt is species specific, beneficial and non-target insects are usually not harmed.

http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_safety.html

Organic farmers are only supposed to use natural pesticides as a last resort. Most of the local farmers around here and in Kitchener/Waterloo are very passionate about what they do and use crop rotation, planting habitats for beneficial predators and good soil to control bug for harmful critters. Doesn't mean it's the ideal thing for the Third World because it isn't at this point, but I'm glad I have the option to purchase both local and organic food.

And yet somehow, artificial pesticides, whether or not they are safe, are to be avoided.

-

Funny thing: Greenpeace lobbied to get Bt-Eggplant testing banned in this country. A crop developed not by an "evil multinational" Monsato, but local scientists.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And yet somehow, artificial pesticides, whether or not they are safe, are to be avoided.

-

Funny thing: Greenpeace lobbied to get Bt-Eggplant testing banned in this country. A crop developed not by an "evil multinational" Monsato, but local scientists.

Greenpeace is a political movement with their own agenda. I'm not sure I'd be using them as the litmus test for anything.

 

[niky]

Greenpeace is a political movement with their own agenda. I'm not sure I'd be using them as the litmus test for anything.

You got me there. They're about as fringe as you can get.

Objection sustained.

 

[x3ra]

Apparently we can't trust anyone. The satellite data is wrong. .

Or is it?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apparently we can't trust anyone. The satellite data is wrong. .

Or is it?

The satellite data will only be wrong if it contradicts the narrative of the global warming movement.

 

[Barra333]

The satellite data will only be wrong if it contradicts the narrative of the global warming movement.

It is a shame that there are so many non-satellite measurements to support the 'narrative'. Thermometers and extreme weather events don't need satellite temperature readings.
Besides, I only watched the first few minutes of the video, and it seemed that the message coming through was that the temperatures may have been underestimated?

 

[Johnnypenso]

It is a shame that there are so many non-satellite measurements to support the 'narrative'. Thermometers and extreme weather events don't need satellite temperature readings.
Besides, I only watched the first few minutes of the video, and it seemed that the message coming through was that the temperatures may have been underestimated?

Yes, that's how you discredit the data. You gather a bunch of global warming alarmists and they have them all agree the data is underestimated. I hear it's a big thing in science these days, so long as you have overwhelming agreement on something it becomes the truth. Play a clip of Rush Limbaugh saying your name right after you claim that the data doesn't show warming, that's how you discredit someone.

 

[Barra333]

Fine. Ignore all satellite data then. Like I said, thermometers and extreme weather events (and CO2 records for that matter) don't need satellites.
You do realise that none of these scientists have anything at all to gain by being unnecessarily alarmist?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Fine. Ignore all satellite data then. Like I said, thermometers and extreme weather events (and CO2 records for that matter) don't need satellites.
You do realise that none of these scientists have anything at all to gain by being unnecessarily alarmist?

You mean apart from keeping their Grants to study it?

 

[Barra333]

Getting the public scared/on side doesn't help much with grants. To get a grant, you need to show that there is something that needs studying (which it clearly does - there will never be enough data for the skeptics) and that you have the skills required to do it.
If grant money was handed out based on public assertions, it would be in their best interest to come out and say "I'm not sure, we need to do more research"

 

[Imari]

Apparently we can't trust anyone. The satellite data is wrong. .

Or is it?

That's quite interesting, but how bad are the people doing the satellite correction model if they got the sign wrong? I mean, you've got ground temps and balloon temps to correlate it with, which is presumably how the whole system gets calibrated in the first place, and as soon as the satellite data begins to drift away from the ground data that seems like a big sign that something isn't right.

Someone dun goofed if this is true.

Doesn't really matter though. Correct the data, re-evaluate, and continue.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sign or sine? Either way it's a big goof, as @Imari says.

 

[niky]

Is it any surprise, though, that they cherry-pick their data like that?

Classic political tactic.

 

[Outspacer]

It was a sign error, corrected in 2005 (version 5.2). AIUI, it only affected the UAH product (mainly on one satellite) and not the RSS product.

For sure it was a goof. Hardly reason to throw out the whole method though. That kind of smear is pure politics, not science.