Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

I don't believe that my actions can affect the climate or earth in a negative way

The effect of an average person on the future climate of the planet is negligible - however that's not the issue... the question is what is the net effect of the entire human population on the climate system. While one person's actions are not going to affect another person specifically, the same cannot be said on a global population scale. US food production could be adversely affected unless developing nations agree to emission limits - the price of your weekly grocery shop could therefore depend on whether or not the Chinese government decide to abide by climate change agreements etc. CO2 emissions from China are now double that of the USA, and are 7 times higher than they were in 1980.

No, it is very much a global issue, and evidence points that most countries don't even fight it.

According to the UNESCO, the G20 nations accounted for 92% of all monies spent on scientific research in 2015. Furthermore, the US is the 8th largest spender of their GDP in Global Warming research (according to 2013 stats) in the world, behind nations such as Israel (who was the largest at 4.09% of GDP) and Japan (at 3.47% of GDP). China, according to 2013 numbers, only contributed about 2% of GDP to combat Global Warming, but produces the MOST CO2 emissions at 8715.31 million metric tons. See a discrepancy here? At least we are following international law in regards to CO2 emissions, but by all signs (lacking recent numbers for a trend) other civilized nations such as China do not respect international law.

I thought I'd reply to this in this thread since I was already discussing China in my post anyway.

This is indeed a thorny question - why should the US (government, industry, people) abide by international agreements if others don't, or even if they do, they are either held to a different standard and/or emit considerably more CO2 in total than the US does? China currently emits twice as much CO2 than the USA, but the USA still emits more than double per capita - so what is the fairest measure? Also, does historical CO2 output make a difference i.e. developed nations (USA, Europe, Japan etc.) almost certainly have contributed more towards the current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere today than the developing world - but that is set to change pretty fast.

Arguably, Europeans and Americans driving slightly less polluting cars or switching their TVs off instead of leaving them on standby is not going to make much difference unless China, India and the rest of the developing world agree to limit their emissions as well.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I thought I'd reply to this in this thread since I was already discussing China in my post anyway.

This is indeed a thorny question - why should the US (government, industry, people) abide by international agreements if others don't, or even if they do, they are either held to a different standard and/or emit considerably more CO2 in total than the US does? China currently emits twice as much CO2 than the USA, but the USA still emits more than double per capita - so what is the fairest measure? Also, does historical CO2 output make a difference i.e. developed nations (USA, Europe, Japan etc.) almost certainly have contributed more towards the current levels of GHGs in the atmosphere today than the developing world - but that is set to change pretty fast.

Arguably, Europeans and Americans driving slightly less polluting cars or switching their TVs off instead of leaving them on standby is not going to make much difference unless China, India and the rest of the developing world agree to limit their emissions as well.

I would think that something like CO2/GDP would be a fairer measure. If you produce more goods and services for the world to consume you are going to produce more CO2. Thinking on a global scale, whoever is producing more goods and services should be "allowed" more CO2 emissions.

 

[xyloscissor]

The effect of an average person on the future climate of the planet is negligible - however that's not the issue... the question is what is the net effect of the entire human population on the climate system. While one person's actions are not going to affect another person specifically, the same cannot be said on a global population scale. US food production could be adversely affected unless developing nations agree to emission limits - the price of your weekly grocery shop could therefore depend on whether or not the Chinese government decide to abide by climate change agreements etc. CO2 emissions from China are now double that of the USA, and are 7 times higher than they were in 1980.

At what point is it ok to ask people to sacrifice their liberties for the better of the whole, and how do you keep that intrusion in check?

 

[Danoff]

At what point is it ok to ask people to sacrifice their liberties for the better of the whole

Never.

You ask people not to infringe the rights of others. What needs to be demonstrated then is that a certain amount of CO2 constitutes harm to the health and property of others. At that point, continuing to release CO2 into the atmosphere would be knowingly violating the rights of those around you. The government can ban/prosecute/regulate that activity based on that determination. This is why it's so critical to have an understanding of what effects various kinds of pollution have and what levels of pollution will be safe.

 

[xyloscissor]

Never.

You ask people not to infringe the rights of others. What needs to be demonstrated then is that a certain amount of CO2 constitutes harm to the health and property of others. At that point, continuing to release CO2 into the atmosphere would be knowingly violating the rights of those around you. The government can ban/prosecute/regulate that activity based on that determination. This is why it's so critical to have an understanding of what effects various kinds of pollution have and what levels of pollution will be safe.

Well you know, I am an actual conservative which means I don't burn ten logs when I only need one to find warmth. I try to be responsible and so forth. Is it not true that many actions of one can indirectly violate another's rights?

I'm not about to go around with a pussy foot, I'm going to live how I want, I do do my best not to infringe because that would be silly but in some respect my very existence does infringe. I can't very well stop pooping can I?

 

[Danoff]

Well you know, I am an actual conservative which means I don't burn ten logs when I only need one to find warmth. I try to be responsible and so forth. Is it not true that many actions of one can indirectly violate another's rights?

That's called negligence. For example, you accidentally run someone over. You "indirectly" killed someone. You didn't mean to violate their rights, but you did anyway. The standard that the US uses for negligence has to do with whether a reasonable person would have known better.

You don't have a right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, etc. By that token, your neighbor has to demonstrate harm directly caused by your actions if they want to claim that you have violated their rights. That won't be the case with global warming. However, with enough research we can determine that harm will necessarily be caused via the release of certain pollutants, and we can attribute an amount of harm to that pollutant. At that point it can be considered a crime to release those pollutants (because they will harm others) and the amount and kind of pollutant that you can safely release can be regulated.

 

[xyloscissor]

That's called negligence. For example, you accidentally run someone over. You "indirectly" killed someone. You didn't mean to violate their rights, but you did anyway. The standard that the US uses for negligence has to do with whether a reasonable person would have known better.

You don't have a right to pollute your neighbor's air, water, etc. By that token, your neighbor has to demonstrate harm directly caused by your actions if they want to claim that you have violated their rights. That won't be the case with global warming. However, with enough research we can determine that harm will necessarily be caused via the release of certain pollutants, and we can attribute an amount of harm to that pollutant. At that point it can be considered a crime to release those pollutants (because they will harm others) and the amount and kind of pollutant that you can safely release can be regulated.

sounds like way to much for an average man, I just want to live in peace. If I am uneducated so be it, I'm not of course but I could be. Laws laws laws, everywhere there is a law. I'm very serious when I say the very fact that I poop is an environmental concern, I can't stop doing it so I'll keep on doing it.

It might seem facetious to you but it really is not, of course we have sewers and reclamation plants because we are not idiots but don't those very plants have an adverse effect on the environment? They do.

Sooner or later someone is going to agree with me that the only way to insure there is no human destruction is to eradicate humans. That is my point, being responsible sure thing, considering those around you sure thing, feeling guilt over living? Nope.

 

[Danoff]

sounds like way to much for an average man, I just want to live in peace. If I am uneducated so be it, I'm not of course but I could be. Laws laws laws, everywhere there is a law. I'm very serious when I say the very fact that I poop is an environmental concern, I can't stop doing it so I'll keep on doing it.

Do you poop on your neighbor's property, that's the question. It's not that complicated, don't harm your neighbor is what it comes down to.

Sooner or later someone is going to agree with me that the only way to insure there is no human destruction is to eradicate humans. That is my point, being responsible sure thing, considering those around you sure thing, feeling guilt over living? Nope.

I'm not asking you to feel guilty for existing, and I'm not calling for the destruction of humans. Don't build strawmen.

 

[xyloscissor]

No strawmen here, I know you are not calling for that. I am however asking the question.

Of course I do not poop on my neighbor's property but it has to go somewhere, I'll tell you quite clearly that where I live you can walk right up to the reclamation plant and see what is discharged directly into the river, where does that river go do you suppose?

Anyway I will spew some more poop because it entertains me lol, no not really that but it is something worth a mention. Some years ago Gore came to my town, he came on a private jet, they closed off the roads so his motor brigade of a few limos and large suv's could have passage. He drove about 20 miles to the destination he wished to speak and the first words out of his mouth were about carbon footprints.

If you do not see the funny in that I can't help you one bit

He even goes so far to claim he buys other peoples carbons so he can live fat. That is a fact jack and I think it's crap.

 

[Danoff]

No strawmen here, I know you are not calling for that. I am however asking the question.

Of course I do not poop on my neighbor's property but it has to go somewhere, I'll tell you quite clearly that where I live you can walk right up to the reclamation plant and see what is discharged directly into the river, where does that river go do you suppose?

Anyway I will spew some more poop because it entertains me lol, no not really that but it is something worth a mention. Some years ago Gore came to my town, he came on a private jet, they closed off the roads so his motor brigade of a few limos and large suv's could have passage. He drove about 20 miles to the destination he wished to speak and the first words out of his mouth were about carbon footprints.

If you do not see the funny in that I can't help you one bit

He even goes so far to claim he buys other peoples carbons so he can live fat. That is a fact jack and I think it's crap.

If you can't dispose of your poop on your property perhaps you can contract someone to take care of it for you. What you do now is pay for your poop to be handled. It's really not that complicated.

 

[huskeR32]

It might seem facetious to you but it really is not, of course we have sewers and reclamation plants because we are not idiots but don't those very plants have an adverse effect on the environment? They do.

Of course they do. But they're better than if everyone was just left to dispose of their waste however they saw fit.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing is perfect. Doesn't mean you just get rid of it all.

Sooner or later someone is going to agree with me that the only way to insure there is no human destruction is to eradicate humans.

That's the most ludicrous slippery slope fallacy I think I've ever heard.

 

[Danoff]

@xyloscissor

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing is perfect. Doesn't mean you just get rid of it all.

To add to that, someone has to be able to demonstrate that you've harmed them in order to have a case. If you pay someone to handle your poop and they do it badly, they've harmed people and are in violation of the law. If they do it well, nobody can demonstrate harm. Done. Perfection not required.

 

[xyloscissor]

@xyloscissor



To add to that, someone has to be able to demonstrate that you've harmed them in order to have a case. If you pay someone to handle your poop and they do it badly, they've harmed people and are in violation of the law. If they do it well, nobody can demonstrate harm. Done. Perfection not required.

I simply wonder where it ends I suppose, don't you? There is no possible way to me to say humans are capable of no impact on the environment, most likely the reason I consider ourselves as part of the earth instead of some destructive alien.

 

[huskeR32]

There is no possible way to me to say humans are capable of no impact on the environment

I don't think anyone expects us to get to that point, at least not for a long time.

That doesn't mean that we stop trying to get there.

 

[Danoff]

I simply wonder where it ends I suppose, don't you? There is no possible way to me to say humans are capable of no impact on the environment, most likely the reason I consider ourselves as part of the earth instead of some destructive alien.

"No impact" is unnecessary. Like I said "perfection not required" in the post that you quoted. All that is needed, and this will be the fourth time I've said this in the last five posts, is to not harm others. Do you think you have a right to harm your neighbors? I didn't think so.

 

[xyloscissor]

"No impact" is unnecessary. Like I said "perfection not required" in the post that you quoted. All that is needed, and this will be the fourth time I've said this in the last five posts, is to not harm others. Do you think you have a right to harm your neighbors? I didn't think so.

I don't know where we are having the disagreement? I didn't ignore you I don't think. The last thing I would want to do is harm my neighbor, it is second nature to me the respect that I have.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know where we are having the disagreement? I didn't ignore you I don't think. The last thing I would want to do is harm my neighbor, it is second nature to me the respect that I have.

You were wondering where it ends, that's where it ends - when your neighbor can't demonstrate harm.

 

[xyloscissor]

You were wondering where it ends, that's where it ends - when your neighbor can't demonstrate harm.

We can dream eh?

 

[Imari]

I simply wonder where it ends I suppose, don't you? There is no possible way to me to say humans are capable of no impact on the environment, most likely the reason I consider ourselves as part of the earth instead of some destructive alien.

Nobody said that no impact was the goal. Avoiding scenarios in which significant proportions of the human race are negatively affected is the goal.

You seem to have an awfully black and white image of the world.

 

[xyloscissor]

You seem to have an awfully black and white image of the world.

That is true, I've always been that way. While I of course realize this issue is not black and white I am still not convinced that I won't be violated for the better good of the whole. Tax in itself shows that I think.

 

[Touring Mars]

Another reason why I sincerely hope the skeptics and deniers regarding climate change are right...

India's planned coal-fired power plants alone put global climate targets at risk...

https://news.uci.edu/research/indias-outsized-coal-plans-would-wipe-out-paris-climate-goals/

This also raises another point - when is a reduction not a reduction? India (and probably every other developing nation) has pledged to 'reduce' its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by up to 35% by 2030; however India's GDP increased by 400% between 2000 and 2010, and even at a rate of economic growth well below its current value (of ~7% per annum), India's GDP could easily be double what it is today by the year 2030... in other words, if India emits 100 units of CO2 per year today, it can emit 130 units of CO2 per year in 2030 and still meet its climate change target. Of course, that is a substantial 'reduction' in terms of what it could be if no action were taken, but it is still not a reduction in CO2 emissions at all.

 

[Danoff]

Another reason why I sincerely hope the skeptics and deniers regarding climate change are right...

India's planned coal-fired power plants alone put global climate targets at risk...

https://news.uci.edu/research/indias-outsized-coal-plans-would-wipe-out-paris-climate-goals/

This also raises another point - when is a reduction not a reduction? India (and probably every other developing nation) has pledged to 'reduce' its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by up to 35% by 2030; however India's GDP increased by 400% between 2000 and 2010, and even at a rate of economic growth well below its current value (of ~7% per annum), India's GDP could easily be double what it is today by the year 2030... in other words, if India emits 100 units of CO2 per year today, it can emit 130 units of CO2 per year in 2030 and still meet its climate change target. Of course, that is a substantial 'reduction' in terms of what it could be if no action were taken, but it is still not a reduction in CO2 emissions at all.

I don't understand why GDP would be tied with pollution. If Disney pumps out a few extra worldwide blockbusters we can pollute a little more? Shouldn't it be based on population?

(I know that a GDP measure would benefit the US a lot more than a population measure)

 

[BobK]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the Political Cartoon thread.

 

[Danoff]

@BobK That's awesome.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Agreed. I wish I could give it 10 likes!

 

[Dotini]

Another warning of mini-ice age on the way. Oh, and people with heart issues may suffer due to the increase in cosmic ray flux.

https://watchers.news/2017/05/13/intensifying-cosmic-rays-grand-solar-minimum-and-climate/

For example, a new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences published March 2017 argues that as cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.

Changes ΔТ in the monthly average values of global (averaged over the Earth) temperature in the near-surface air layer (fine curve). The ΔТ values are counted from the average value of the global temperature, acquired for the period 1901–2000. The solid heavy curve represents the calculations performed using spectral data analysis. The forecast is given for changes ΔT in temperature after 2015. The dashed line corresponds to ΔT = 0. Credit: Y. I. Stozhkov et al.

================================================

COSMIC RAYS ARE INTENSIFYING: As the sunspot cycle declines, we expect cosmic rays to increase. Is this actually happening? The answer is "yes." Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus have been monitoring radiation levels in the stratosphere with frequent high-altitude balloon flights over California. Here are the latest results, current as of May 6, 2017:



The data show cosmic ray levels intensifying with an approximately 13% increase since March 2015.

Cosmic rays are high-energy photons and subatomic particles accelerated in our direction by distant supernovas and other violent events in the Milky Way. Usually, cosmic rays are held at bay by the sun's magnetic field, which envelops and protects all the planets in the Solar System. But the sun's magnetic shield is weakening in 2017 as the solar cycle shifts from Solar Maximum to Solar Minimum. More and more cosmic rays are therefore reaching our planet.

How does this affect us? Cosmic rays penetrate commercial airlines, dosing passengers and flight crews enough that pilots are classified as occupational radiation workers. Some research shows that cosmic rays can seed clouds and trigger lightning, potentially altering weather and climate. Furthermore, there are studies ( #1, #2, #3, #4) linking cosmic rays with cardiac arrhythmias in the general population.

The sensors we send to the stratosphere measure X-rays and gamma-rays, which are produced by the crash of primary cosmic rays into Earth's atmosphere. The energy range of the sensors, 10 keV to 20 MeV, is similar to that of medical X-ray machines and airport security scanners.

NOTE: This increase is not happening ONLY over California. All parts of the world will be experiencing elevated levels of cosmic rays. The amount varies from place to place depending on the uneven protection afforded by our own planet's magnetic field. In the days ahead we will share new data from intercontinental balloon launches tracing the global response to this phenomenon.

.....from today's edition of spaceweather.com

 

[BobK]

Another warning of mini-ice age on the way. Oh, and people with heart issues will suffer greatly due to the increase in cosmic ray flux.

https://watchers.news/2017/05/13/intensifying-cosmic-rays-grand-solar-minimum-and-climate/

For example, a new scientific paper authored by seven scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences published March 2017 argues that as cosmic ray flux increases, more clouds are formed on a global scale. More global-scale cloud cover means more solar radiation is correspondingly blocked from reaching the Earth’s surface (oceans). With an increase in global cloud cover projected for the coming decades (using trend analysis), a global cooling is predicted.

Changes ΔТ in the monthly average values of global (averaged over the Earth) temperature in the near-surface air layer (fine curve). The ΔТ values are counted from the average value of the global temperature, acquired for the period 1901–2000. The solid heavy curve represents the calculations performed using spectral data analysis. The forecast is given for changes ΔT in temperature after 2015. The dashed line corresponds to ΔT = 0. Credit: Y. I. Stozhkov et al.

How long, would you estimate, before they're censured for not following the global warming mantra?

 

[Dotini]

How long, would you estimate, before they're censured for not following the global warming mantra?

Summertime. The were unable to convene the spring censure committee meeting due to snowstorms.

 

[Johnnypenso]

How long, would you estimate, before they're censured for not following the global warming mantra?

Good question. Another good question. Has anyone run this by Bill Nye yet? He is the science guy after all

 

[DK]

Wasn't sure if this should go here or the Political Cartoon thread.

View attachment 647438

Why am I not surprised to see Scott Adams misrepresent climatology?