Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Johnnypenso]

A frost fair? Given bureaucratic nonsense, probably pretty slim. The river Thames freezing over? Given that climate changes cause more extreme weather patterns, that is certainly probable.

Were they having climate change in 1814 as well or did they just call it weather?

 

[KungFury]

Were they having climate change in 1814 as well or did they just call it weather?

At least as far back as 1922 in the ol U.S. of A.

 

[mustafur]

Were they having climate change in 1814 as well or did they just call it weather?

"Quite nippy" would probably be the words used.

 

[TexRex]

At least as far back as 1922 in the ol U.S. of A.

When are the Chinese supposed to have made up global warming to make US production non-competitive?

 

[niky]

When are the Chinese supposed to have made up global warming to make US production non-competitive?

The moment China stopped making noise about Climate Change being a Western conspiracy to keep them poor:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/31/the-convenient-disappearance-of-climate-change-denial-in-china/

It's hilarious the way Trump paints it... as if he was completely ignorant of the history of China's opposition to Climate Change Policy.

-

Of course, he probably is.

Not a slight against Trump, but if you aren't Asian, you won't have seen how angry the communists and socialists were back in those days about this imposition by "Western imperialists."

 

[Danoff]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/22/...on-climate-change-biodiversity-global-warming

Aerosol injection? That's... drastic.

 

[Mr Tree]

The result of this poll, considering man made global warming is by now scientific fact, is to say the least...

Disturbing.

This is noy sceptisism it's cynisism, or a copingmechanism somewhat like fundamantalist christians who don't believe in evolution.

 

[Northstar]

man made global warming is by now scientific fact, is to say the least...

So surely you can provide solid evidence than?

And keep in mind correlation doesn’t equal causation.

 

[Mr Tree]

So surely you can provide solid evidence than?

And keep in mind correlation doesn’t equal causation.

You want evidence 97% or more of the scientific papers shows it's manmade.
What reason do you have to believe the 3%?

At what point is the burdon of proof met in your opinion?

Edit: solid evidence one of those terms used by creationists

 

[Northstar]

You want evidence 97% or more of the scientific papers shows it's manmade.
What reason do you have to believe the 3%?

What papers?

At what point is the burdon of proof met in your opinion?

Much more than you have posted thus far.

Edit: solid evidence one of those terms used by creationists

And scientists.

 

[Dotini]

I would be willing to bet money that we will undergo a mini-ice age for the next ~30 years.

 

[Mr Tree]

What papers?



Much more than you have posted thus far.



And scientists.

I'll search some specific papers later tonight when off of work.
But I am wondering with the 'what papers' doe you imply some scientists just say this because they have a hunch? By now there have been hundreds of papers written on the subject and the general consensus in the scientific community is it's real and manmade, what reason would I have to doubt that?

And yes you are right it's most definitly scientific that correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Joey D]

It's still just a working hypothesis that the climate change is due to man made activities, however it does have reasonable evidence surrounding it. The only thing that is a scientific fact is climate change in general, it is happening but we aren't 100% certain of the cause.

This isn't to say we should ignore the amount of pollution we generate though. Even if humans aren't directly responsible for climate change, the pollution we generate is definitely an issue for the environment and ecosystems. Deforestation, acid rain, toxic water, etc. are all directly related to human activity.

I would be willing to bet money that we will undergo a mini-ice age for the next ~30 years.

I'm not sure if it'll happen that soon, but it could. I know one theory is that when global temperature rise and melt ice caps, the likelihood of colder temps nearer to the poles eventually end up decreasing. The "snowball earth" hypothesis explains some of it.

 

[Mr Tree]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated

I know it's.just one article but I don't have a boatload of time currently beeing at work.

I do have to concede that it's not yet scientific fact but it's getting really close.

Also what do people have to gain from beeing opposed to it beeing manmade?
@Northstar honnest question do you just question it as a fact or do you also think we should'nt change our actions? Because imagine if climatechange isn't real and we created a better world for nothing?

 

[Joey D]

Also what do people have to gain from beeing opposed to it beeing manmade?

Lots actually. If it was proved or at least "proved" in the way the government proves things, that climate change was not the result of being man made, it'd be harder to fight for alternative energy, renewable resources, etc.

This means the anyone involved in energy production, natural resource extraction, manufacturing, etc. would benefit from reduced regulations and an overall population happy to not question where stuff is coming from.

 

[TexRex]

I do have to concede that it's not yet scientific fact but it's getting really close.

Until a better theory comes along, because that's what science is.

Also what do people have to gain from beeing opposed to it beeing manmade?

It allows those who don't believe to act--or enact regulations--to the detriment with a clear conscience.

 

[Northstar]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated

I know it's.just one article but I don't have a boatload of time currently beeing at work.

I do have to concede that it's not yet scientific fact but it's getting really close.

Also what do people have to gain from beeing opposed to it beeing manmade?
@Northstar honnest question do you just question it as a fact or do you also think we should'nt change our actions? Because imagine if climatechange isn't real and we created a better world for nothing?

I certainly think we should change our actions as our air and drinking water are polluted to ridiculous levels, not to mention the other ways we have made a mess of things (mainly deforestation). At the rate we are going in not sure global warming will make an ounce of difference.

I should also clarify that I don’t deny climate change, just that we are 100% responsible. The world has gone through extreme changes in the past before mankind was even around so it’s hard to say something like that isn’t happening again only made worse by us.

 

[Mr Tree]

Lots actually. If it was proved or at least "proved" in the way the government proves things, that climate change was not the result of being man made, it'd be harder to fight for alternative energy, renewable resources, etc.

This means the anyone involved in energy production, natural resource extraction, manufacturing, etc. would benefit from reduced regulations and an overall population happy to not question where stuff is coming from.

Until a better theory comes along, because that's what science is.


It allows those who don't believe to act--or enact regulations--to the detriment with a clear conscience.

Yes but we woud create a world where it's ok to polute the air because it doesn't kill our planet. But if I'm not mistaken and please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the polution of the air also unhealty?

Wouldn't that be enough reason to cha'ge our actions? Or is the healthrisk only for NOx and not for COx?

I seemed to have been misinformed a bit...
I adjusted my believe to it probably beeing man made due to the overwelming amount if scientists who think it is compared to those who don't, until evidence comes along to show it's wrong.


Edit: @Northstar I was starting to think you where gztting me to question my statement more then to say I'm defenitly wrong.

 

[Joey D]

Yes but we woud create a world where it's ok to polute the air because it doesn't kill our planet. But if I'm not mistaken and please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the polution of the air also unhealty?

Wouldn't that be enough reason to cha'ge our actions? Or is the healthrisk only for NOx and not for COx?

I agree, I think we should protect the environment whether humans are the cause of climate change or not. Polluted air contributes to respiratory disease and even cancer, so yes it's extremely unhealthy. Here in Salt Lake City, we get blessed with inversions where smog is trapped in the valley, when that happens the population of the hospital I work at skyrockets with people coming in not able to breathe.

For me, not wanting to live in a toxic wasteland is enough for me to change my actions. But I think for a good chunk of the population they don't really care.

 

[Touring Mars]

I should also clarify that I don’t deny climate change, just that we are 100% responsible.

There is not a single, credible climate model that is based on the assumption that mankind is '100% responsible' for climate change.

The fact is that there are a number of climate forcings, both manmade and natural. The question is not so much 'Is the climate changing?' but 'What, if any, impact are human activities having on global climate?'. Both manmade (anthropogenic) and natural forcings (as well as the complex feedbacks that they induce) need to be both understood and accounted for in order to make a credible model of the global climate. I think it would be fair to say that even the most advanced climate models still struggle to produce credible predictions of the future, but on the flip side, there are no credible models that can accurately explain/model observed climate change without factoring in human activity (e.g. atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels). In other words, it is practically beyond reasonable doubt that human activity can and does influence global climate, but it is harder to say exactly how and even harder to predict what effect that influence will have.

As Danoff alludes to above, however, perhaps the biggest and most troubling problem with anthropogenic climate change is that the cure could be even worse than the disease. Mankind has been unwittingly/inadvertently influencing global climate for centuries, but, ironically, now that we know that certain activities are contributing to global climate change, it may create the (dangerous) impression that we can or should actively do something to 'fix' the problem (e.g. by spraying cooling aerosols into the high atmosphere on purpose). The key issue here is the difference between 'influence' and 'control'. Some believe that no amount of human activity can influence the climate - they are almost certainly wrong. But many others, myself included, believe that no matter what we do, mankind/technology will prove incapable of actually 'controlling' the climate, and attempting to do so could be utterly disastrous. I think the best we can hope for is that we learn how to mitigate the effects of our activities and learn from the past.

 

[Danoff]

I agree, I think we should protect the environment whether humans are the cause of climate change or not. Polluted air contributes to respiratory disease and even cancer, so yes it's extremely unhealthy. Here in Salt Lake City, we get blessed with inversions where smog is trapped in the valley, when that happens the population of the hospital I work at skyrockets with people coming in not able to breathe.

For me, not wanting to live in a toxic wasteland is enough for me to change my actions. But I think for a good chunk of the population they don't really care.

I was horrified at the amount of smog that happens in Salt Lake City when I was there during an inversion. I went for a drive out to the salt lake and found the smog increasing and increasing and increasing and thought... I'm getting close to the source of this. Eventually the smog was so bad that road visibility was poor. It was like being in a snow storm. Cars were materializing out of the smog in front of me. It was right about then that I reached the coal plant near the lake.

There is not a single, credible climate model that is based on the assumption that mankind is '100% responsible' for climate change.

The fact is that there are a number of climate forcings, both manmade and natural. The question is not so much 'Is the climate changing?' but 'What, if any, impact are human activities having on global climate?'. Both manmade (anthropogenic) and natural forcings (as well as the complex feedbacks that they induce) need to be both understood and accounted for in order to make a credible model of the global climate. I think it would be fair to say that even the most advanced climate models still struggle to produce credible predictions of the future, but on the flip side, there are no credible models that can accurately explain/model observed climate change without factoring in human activity (e.g. atmospheric pollution from burning fossil fuels). In other words, it is practically beyond reasonable doubt that human activity can and does influence global climate, but it is harder to say exactly how and even harder to predict what effect that influence will have.

As Danoff alludes to above, however, perhaps the biggest and most troubling problem with anthropogenic climate change is that the cure could be even worse than the disease. Mankind has been unwittingly/inadvertently influencing global climate for centuries, but, ironically, now that we know that certain activities are contributing to global climate change, it may create the (dangerous) impression that we can or should actively do something to 'fix' the problem (e.g. by spraying cooling aerosols into the high atmosphere on purpose). The key issue here is the difference between 'influence' and 'control'. Some believe that no amount of human activity can influence the climate - they are almost certainly wrong. But many others, myself included, believe that no matter what we do, mankind/technology will prove incapable of actually 'controlling' the climate, and attempting to do so could be utterly disastrous. I think the best we can hope for is that we learn how to mitigate the effects of our activities and learn from the past.

To think that you and I used to argue about this in this thread... great post.

I will say that I have hope that eventually we could actually control the climate. But we need a TON more research before we start toying with that. If mankind is responsible for 90% of the warming, we need research to figure out how to best deal with it. If nature is responsible for 90% of the warming, we need research to figure out how best to deal with it. The one thing I'm highly confident of in all of this is that we can't get away with rash action before we know with high confidence that we understand what the effects will be.

I will say that in the last 5 years or so there have been some very interesting refinements to global climate models. It does seem like we're learning a lot at rapid pace.

 

[TexRex]

I will say that I have hope that eventually we could actually control the climate.

Ah, but who gets to operate the controls? As a man who likes the thermostat set to 65° (F) in the winter, but lives in a house with two women who would much rather it be 72...the prospect concerns me.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, but who gets to operate the controls? As a man who likes the thermostat set to 65° (F) in the winter, but lives in a house with two women who would much rather it be 72...the prospect concerns me.

China... did you change the thermostat again?

 

[Touring Mars]

Ah, but who gets to operate the controls?

Sounds like a job for a very stable genius.

 

[Shaun]

Sounds like a job for a very stable genius.

Mr. ED?

 

[Mr Tree]

Ah, but who gets to operate the controls? As a man who likes the thermostat set to 65° (F) in the winter, but lives in a house with two women who would much rather it be 72...the prospect concerns me.

I'm pretty certain we should be able to figure out a 'setting' that's based on logic. You can objectively state a best setting. (This is not the same as my best setting nor do I want to imply we are capable of finding out said setting at this point in time)

 

[Imari]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-consensus-on-climate-change-it-s-complicated

I know it's.just one article but I don't have a boatload of time currently beeing at work.

I do have to concede that it's not yet scientific fact but it's getting really close.

Also what do people have to gain from beeing opposed to it beeing manmade?
@Northstar honnest question do you just question it as a fact or do you also think we should'nt change our actions? Because imagine if climatechange isn't real and we created a better world for nothing?

Do you not see the problem with ignoring people who choose to sit on the fence because they don't feel that they have adequate evidence either way? They don't have no view, they have a view that includes recognition that sometimes we simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement yet.

Having an opinion just for the sake of having an opinion regardless of whether you can support it isn't really that scientific. Sometimes it's OK to say "I'm not sure, I'm waiting for more information".

I'm pretty certain we should be able to figure out a 'setting' that's based on logic. You can objectively state a best setting. (This is not the same as my best setting nor do I want to imply we are capable of finding out said setting at this point in time)

I seriously doubt it. Given that various countries all around the world will want the best setting for themselves, and that kind of by definition climate varies over different geographic areas, I would be shocked if there was any one "setting" that produced an optimal result for everyone.

 

[LeMansAid]

Do you not see the problem with ignoring people who choose to sit on the fence because they don't feel that they have adequate evidence either way? They don't have no view, they have a view that includes recognition that sometimes we simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement yet.

Having an opinion just for the sake of having an opinion regardless of whether you can support it isn't really that scientific. Sometimes it's OK to say "I'm not sure, I'm waiting for more information".

Yep, and that's why the religious nutter argument, that @Mr Tree entered the fray with, falls flat on it's face. Being non-committal on climate change is equal to atheism, and therefore far from comparable to a faith-based denial of the evidence for evolution.

I seriously doubt it. Given that various countries all around the world will want the best setting for themselves, and that kind of by definition climate varies over different geographic areas, I would be shocked if there was any one "setting" that produced an optimal result for everyone.

Yep, Greenland's ideal (considering their ever-increasing food crop hauls thanks to global warming) might sink various Pacific islands.

 

[Mr Tree]

Do you not see the problem with ignoring people who choose to sit on the fence because they don't feel that they have adequate evidence either way? They don't have no view, they have a view that includes recognition that sometimes we simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement yet.

Having an opinion just for the sake of having an opinion regardless of whether you can support it isn't really that scientific. Sometimes it's OK to say "I'm not sure, I'm waiting for more information".



I seriously doubt it. Given that various countries all around the world will want the best setting for themselves, and that kind of by definition climate varies over different geographic areas, I would be shocked if there was any one "setting" that produced an optimal result for everyone.

On your first point I did see the issue with that that's why, in a later post I conceded the point and acknowledged I was misinformed. People have made valid points against it...


On your second point did you read what was written between brackets? You know that problem you qouted and then mentioned yourself as a reply?
I believe we SHOULD be able to, over time as this is a complex issue. The world in it's current state WILL NOT do this in an honest way. Our entire government/bussinesmodel is modelled for profit not honesty... (Why I don't believe capitalism is the be all end all system, but that is an other thread)

@LeMansAid I agree that it was a very flawed analogy.
I agree that beeing non-comital is like beeing atheist. I do want to point out beeing non-comital is not the same as it beeing a 50-50 probability for either scenario.

 

[TexRex]

Sounds like a job for a very stable genius.

With a "big & powerful" dial that "works."

I'm pretty certain we should be able to figure out a 'setting' that's based on logic. You can objectively state a best setting.

As @Imari stated, more than one "setting" would be required, but people would still need to agree on what's best, which they clearly cannot do--either without petty infighting or at all.