Climate Science/Climate Change/Global Warming

[Doc_Glock]

I thought I would post this here since generally the quality of the discussion on PF is unbelievably rich and intelligent. I recently posted an article on Facebook about the possible effects of climate change on the midwest and had a storm of comments from both sides, with people basically lining up according to political affiliation. I don't really care about the politics. What does the science actually say? It seems well accepted that humans are doing something to the environment, and that something is probably not in our best long term interest. It seems reasonable to me to take steps to try to avert any calamity (if that is indeed possible and it may not be.)

Problems I see:
Climate science and an excuse for Marxist transfer of wealth and or leftist power grabs.
Climate science as not really all that scientific.
Climate science proclaiming disaster in search of funding in the zero sum game of academic research.
Knee jerk right wing reactions to any intervention that might be helpful to the environment.
Lack of long term thinking amongst politicians, especially on the right.

Soooo, is this thing settled as far as warming goes? I sort of think it is, and the issue is more exactly how should we handle it, if it can be handled at all or if we should just roll with it and adapt as needed.

Discuss.

[Default.mp3]

Soon, ITT:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IynvPneUpb7SnBe/giphy.gif

Climate change is one of those few things that I've never seen go well on firearms-centric forums; even here, the times it's been brought up here, it didn't go well.

[Joe in PNG]

The Third World loves Climate Change. That means there's more money to be skimmed and stolen for the purpose of buying things like Maseratis and two stroke gensets and other toys which pretty much wipe out any benefit that was supposed to come from sending them money in the first place.

[einherjarvalk]

My take is very simple:

1. Climate change is very real, and while it almost certainly is manmade, even if it isn't, we should still be working towards cleaner, more eco-friendly lifestyles as good stewards of the planet.
2. If climate change is manmade, most of it is, at this point, China's fault and not ours, and they should be the primary targets of climate change policy.

[Doc_Glock]

My take is very simple:

1. Climate change is very real, and while it almost certainly is manmade, even if it isn't, we should still be working towards cleaner, more eco-friendly lifestyles as good stewards of the planet.
2. If climate change is manmade, most of it is, at this point, China's fault and not ours, and they should be the primary targets of climate change policy.

The second point came home to me when I was learning about all the plastic in the ocean. Turns out the vast majority of it comes from Asia.

[Cookie Monster]

I work in land management for the feds, my gig is science and worked on climate change studies but my main gig is using that science to support our management.

I science is solid, is there shit that is bad science and folks point at as wrong sure but I see it in our wildfire season changes and lenghtens and changes in how our forests are changing and reacting.

When I can get to my work computer, I can link in some general articles.

I am tree hugger though and the earth is fucking complex so I am don’t know.

[JoeSixPack]

Natural born skeptic here. It's an interesting theory that deserves consideration and may even hold some element of truth, but I'm going to go ahead and just call BS on most of what makes the news as it's deeply biased from 'researchers' who make a living from government funding...and they always need more funding for continued research. If you don't believe me, just read some of their emails from the Climategate scandal (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/06/250-plus-noteworthy-climategate-2-0-emails/) a few years ago. The 'consensus' was pretty openly exposed as collusion....but that wasn't newsworthy.

Here's a very recent example of ocean warming miscalculations (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html) that made it through "peer review" and into mainstream news just a few weeks ago. The authors retracted - but overall, the news cycle didn't. Yep - the collusion continues.

Now back to draining the swamp....:D

[olstyn]

There are too many of us, our average life expectancy goes up every year, we're breeding at far greater than replacement rate, and we all, directly, indirectly, or both, create greenhouse gasses. Yes, China is a problem, but who buys more stuff from China than anybody else on the planet? The USA. We've just outsourced our dirty habits, that's all. Until we can persuade the entire world to both have less kids *and* be better stewards of the planet, I don't think there's a lot of hope.

[Trooper224]

There are two basic questions to answer.

1) Is climate change happening.

Answer: yes, even a moron on the short school bus should be able to see that. Denial is simply in the realm of believing the earth is flat. Climate change has occurred for as long as the planet's had an atmosphere. The real question follows.

2) Is human activity accelerating climate change?

Answer: of course it is. We've reached a point where this should be obvious, through our misuse of our technology, exploding populations, etc. We are effecting the planets climate at an unprecedented rate. If people would put aside their blind obedience and adherence to one political dogma or another this would be obvious.


I guess there's a third question: Can we do anything about it?

I'd say the answer to that is, no. I suspect we're too far down the rabbit hole for that. There are too many countries without any kind of regulatory systems in place, as well as too many political entities with unsavory agendas on both sides of the issue to ever gain a consensus.

In short, we've fucked the world our children will be left with.

[jeep45238]

I thought I would post this here since generally the quality of the discussion on PF is unbelievably rich and intelligent. I recently posted an article on Facebook about the possible effects of climate change on the midwest and had a storm of comments from both sides, with people basically lining up according to political affiliation. I don't really care about the politics. What does the science actually say? It seems well accepted that humans are doing something to the environment, and that something is probably not in our best long term interest. It seems reasonable to me to take steps to try to avert any calamity (if that is indeed possible and it may not be.)

Problems I see:
Climate science and an excuse for Marxist transfer of wealth and or leftist power grabs.
Climate science as not really all that scientific.
Climate science proclaiming disaster in search of funding in the zero sum game of academic research.
Knee jerk right wing reactions to any intervention that might be helpful to the environment.
Lack of long term thinking amongst politicians, especially on the right.

Soooo, is this thing settled as far as warming goes? I sort of think it is, and the issue is more exactly how should we handle it, if it can be handled at all or if we should just roll with it and adapt as needed.

Discuss.

Having studied the scientific portion of it for 2 years:

1- power grabs can be applied to any topic
2- We don't have it all figured out. It's also vastly more complicated than you think - example, a single course covered the use of 2 isotopes, and even then was still inconclusive in many situations. It is proxy data that must be included with other proxy data, all fully calibrated with all assumptions put up front.
3- Partly. But we've also never approached a temperature AND CO2 concentration like we are seeing now simutaniously. And no money = no research = fewer answers
4- Knee jerk also happens on the left that blockades any median standards
5- They're politicians - they don't care about anything but their own career.

[FNFAN]

Keeping in mind that the UNFCCC is the 'United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change' Here you you go:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting
ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to
change the economic development model that has been reigning for at
least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen
overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate
change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not
occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the
transformation." -Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC

Oh! And there's this one:

"Climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth andit's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately fromthe major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."
-Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change.

The Great Lakes and the thousands of lakes throughout Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota were carved from a half mile thick glacier. Climate Change caused it to melt.... a few hundred thousands of years ago. By all means we should protect our environment and be good stewards for our environment.

Anthropomorphic climate change is a scam.

[Bucky]

When I was growing up, it was all about global cooling.

Then it became global warming.

Now it’s climate change.

The biggest stewarts of combatting “man made climate change” have gotten insanely rich off of it”. They’re also the biggest offenders.

There is also an elitism to this, in that if I give money for someone else to be clean, I can pollute all I want.

The man made climate change movement is a SCAM. Even if it is true, it is being exploited for political and monetary gain by people who have no intentions of changing their own lives or habits to combat the issue.

[peterb]

On the one hand, the amount of good data we have covers nearly nothing in geological time.

On the other hand, it makes no sense to me that we can keep pumping crap into the air and water, burning rainforests, etc. with no consequences.

Is there politics involved? Of course. There’s money at stake. But that doesn’t mean that all the data is invalid.

And I can’t see any reason not to move towards cleaner, more sustainable ways of living.

[Jim Watson]

Climate Change caused it to melt.... a few hundred thousands of years ago.

The end of the last Ice Age is taken to be 11,700 years ago, after 115,000 years of cold.
This was the usual schedule for a few million years, 100,000+ cold years, 10,000 or so warm years.

Has Americanogenic Global Climate Disruption broken the cycle of 90% cold? I would hope so, if I thought it could.

Over the past few years astronomers have made the inconvenient observation that temperatures on Mars and the outer planets were up. Not many SUVs out there.

[RoyGBiv]

On the other hand, it makes no sense to me that we can keep pumping crap into the air and water, burning rainforests, etc. with no consequences.
And that's the "in". I mean, it's just "Commonsense", right? In what other debate has this incipient argument been used? Hmmmm..

IMO, the politicization of "Global Warming" makes almost all "data" suspect.

The one thing I do know with certainty is that taxing Americans for the ongoing sins of China and India and Brazil (deforestation) is not a bus I plan to ride on.
Personally, I'm looking forward to growing more crops in Siberia and Canada.

(not picking on you peterb, just a good starting point for my thoughts on this.)

[CG12]

I work in land management for the feds, my gig is science and worked on climate change studies but my main gig is using that science to support our management.

I science is solid, is there shit that is bad science and folks point at as wrong sure but I see it in our wildfire season changes and lenghtens and changes in how our forests are changing and reacting.

When I can get to my work computer, I can link in some general articles.

I am tree hugger though and the earth is fucking complex so I am don’t know.

I heard a talk from some BLM and FS guys recently who mentioned the huge increase in the portion of their budget that is spent fighting fires. In your opinion, do you think this has anything to do with laws preventing clear-cutting or other fire management practices? Could it be related to increases in development in fire-prone areas?

[CCT125US]

People are a plague upon society. So there's that. Rampant consumerism, keeping up with the neighbors, disposable goods, it all adds up and has impact. I have seen my nearby quaint little town explode in population, because everyone wants to live in a quaint little town. All those houses, roads, and growth have an impact.

[Chance]

Yes, man-made climate change is real.

Are the proposed solutions to combat climate change problematic? Unquestionably. Are the proposed solutions so problematic it's better to go full retard and deny what even the most ignorant of disinterested observers can clearly see is happening? A lot of people evidently think so.


When I was growing up, it was all about global cooling.

That's because the earth was getting cooler (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27122-Paris-Climate-Accord-Threatened-by-Inaccurate-Data&p=634773&viewfull=1#post634773).

[spinmove_]

People moving to quaint little towns and exploding their development is just a small part. You think the technology that enables us to have a discussion on this topic through this medium is cheap or easy to maintain? The networking infrastructure alone is an insane example of how expensive and power hungry our insatiable desire to share data with each other is. ALL of that adds up and the vast majority of it is powered ultimately by coal. It’s not just cars, factories, and people not throwing their trash away. It’s damn near everything. The problem is most people won’t give up anything despite their desire to do something better for the planet.

Wanna go somewhere? Walk or ride a bike instead of driving. Wanna learn something? Read a book instead of googling the topic for 4 hours. Wanna eat? Grow it or kill it instead of driving to the store to buy mass produced steaks. Wanna play a game? Grab a deck of cards and some friends instead of picking up an XBox controller to play games with someone down the street.

I’m guilty of it too. But that’s how complacency gets you in “the modern world”. Life was VERY different 40 years or more ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hambo]

Yes, man-made climate change is real.

Are the proposed solutions to combat climate change problematic? Unquestionably. Are the proposed solutions so problematic it's better to go full retard and deny what even the most ignorant of disinterested observers can clearly see is happening? A lot of people evidently think so.

It's hard to face extinction with a clear head.

[Dorsai]

The end of the last Ice Age is taken to be 11,700 years ago, after 115,000 years of cold.
This was the usual schedule for a few million years, 100,000+ cold years, 10,000 or so warm years.

Has Americanogenic Global Climate Disruption broken the cycle of 90% cold? I would hope so, if I thought it could.

Over the past few years astronomers have made the inconvenient observation that temperatures on Mars and the outer planets were up. Not many SUVs out there.

Small correction. We are still in the Ice Age, we are what is in an interglacial period. So long as there are ice caps on the poles, we're in an ice age. A couple of things. If you look at the commonly accepted global temperature estimates based on available data, the earth has been cooling for millions of years. It goes down, it goes up (not as much as it was before), it goes down (a bit colder than the last coldest) and the slope over hundreds of million years is a down slope. The earth started as a molten mass and we've been radiating heat into space since the beginning. Simple physics. Now to the ice age. The Quaternary Ice Age began about 2.58 million years ago and we're still in it. As you said, interglacials last about 10,000 years and we're overdue.
Here's another important thing. We don't know the exact mechanisms because believe it or not, orbital mechanics and ocean currents are still being studied. Look up the Milkanovich cycles of axial tilt, precession and the degree of ellipsis in our orbit around the sun. They have different cycles and depending on how they match up, they can reinforce warming, or cooling, as in lots of axial tilt at a time when our orbit is very elliptical vs. circular and you can have winters in which the polar region is really pointed away from the sun at the same time we are furthest away in our orbit (apogee). That results in long severe winters for centuries. Think that causes the ice to grow?

Guys write books on this stuff so I'm not going to keep on, but you also need to remember that while we learn from the past, the continents were very different then, as in Pangaea when all the land was a single super-continent, to what we are now, multiple continents, continuing to spread apart and change. Those changes affect the ocean cycles. Some of the ones we have now are multidecadal Pacific cycles and duodecadal Atlantic currents. The Kuroshio current that takes warm water up the Asian coast and around the Aleutian chain. The Gulfstream that takes warm water to Europe. The shorter cycles of El Nino and La Nina in the Pacific. The ocean currents are what is really important because the oceans absorb or emit most of the CO2 based on temperature and our planet's temperatures are mainly regulated by the oceans. Land temperatures are unimportant in the overall global temps, it is the oceans that drive things. Final point. I've read some stuff linking it, but nothing definitive. The last ice age began about 2.58 million years ago. Approximately 5 million years ago, the Central American Seaway closed, forming the Panama Isthmus. That radically changed the ocean currents and led to the formation of the Gulf Stream. That could be the start of the Arctic Ice Cap. The Antarctic started about 34 million years ago when Antarctica split from S. America and became surrounded by ocean and isolation from the warmer currents.

Why is this all important? The big changes in "climate" occur over thousands and millions of years. The stuff that happens over a couple of decades or hundreds of years isn't climate change, it's weather. The uneducated see only what happens in their lifetime and think that's significant. It's like an ant sensing the approach of winter and going all Game of Thrones. Winter is coming! and the world is ending. If you only live a year, yeah. You won't see summer coming.

[Bucky]

Yes, man-made climate change is real.

Are the proposed solutions to combat climate change problematic? Unquestionably. Are the proposed solutions so problematic it's better to go full retard and deny what even the most ignorant of disinterested observers can clearly see is happening? A lot of people evidently think so.


It's really hard to buy into this when the overwhelming retort is you're an idiot if you don't believe this. Like the existence of god, this has become a religion and will likely not be definitively proven either way in any of our lifetimes, or the lifetime of anyone alive today.

ETA: I'm not implying that we (the US) should just be recklessly pollutant. We should continue to be as clean as is reasonable. The rest of the world will continue to be more of the issue, if there even is one.

[scw2]

I guess there's a third question: Can we do anything about it?

The real problem I see is the discussion seems to always focus on is it real or is it not, and depending on which side you stand on that topic, it's an all or nothing response of doing everything to save the environment at all costs versus no change at all. It would be helpful to get a good idea to understand the trade-off off the cost if we do nothing versus the various outcomes & costs for varying options to try and counteract climate change.

[Dorsai]

Global warming peaked about 1998 when you factor out temporary increases as a result of El Nino effects. Ocean temperature hasn't gone up. All of the doom and gloom is based on very flawed computer models, none of which have been accurate. They've said storms would be worse. They haven't. They've said they'd be more frequent, they haven't. And by storm, I'm including hurricanes and tornadoes. We are no where close to historic highs for CO2 and the only result of higher CO2 has been the greening of the deserts, which include the Sahara and the northern latitudes (desert is based on precipitation, not temperature). CO2 is plant fertilizer. If we were able to lower the CO2 to the pre-industrial levels, we would be getting close to the CO2 starvation level for many plants. Human caused atmospheric CO2 is a minuscule number compared to natural CO2 release. And despite the hype, CO2 is also a very minor "greenhouse gas" compared to water vapor. Even were we able to reduce atmospheric CO2 (attributable to all causes), it would devastate world economies, kill millions because of lack of power, reduced crop yields, etc. And have no discernible effect on temperatures.

[Chance]

It's really hard to buy into this when the overwhelming retort is you're an idiot if you don't believe this.

Dude, the overwhelming retort is mountains of empirical evidence. It's difficult to not get exasperated with people who willingly disregard facts.

[Bucky]

Dude, the overwhelming retort is mountains of empirical evidence. It's difficult to not get exasperated with people who willingly disregard facts.

It's just as exasperating when you ignore evidence to the contrary. There have been many scientist that show the change is cyclical, hence the global cooling, then global warming, then let's call it climate change to cover all basis. Then there are scientists that don't believe we are making as much of an impact as would be believed. But back to politics and greed, those opinions that don't support the climate change initiative aren't given an equal voice, and again being shot down with insults and slander.

And I'm not "Dude".

[Chance]

It's just as exasperating when you ignore evidence to the contrary. There have been many scientist that show the change is cyclical, hence the global cooling, then global warming, then let's call it climate change to cover all basis. Then there are scientists that don't believe we are making as much of an impact as would be believed.

Climate change is cyclical on the order of millennia, not decades.

[ralph]

Soon, ITT:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IynvPneUpb7SnBe/giphy.gif

Climate change is one of those few things that I've never seen go well on firearms-centric forums; even here, the times it's been brought up here, it didn't go well.

Yup, after 3 pages, it's already starting to go south...

[GardoneVT]

Sorry folks; climate change science is a nonstarter in the area of inspiring change.

Politicians have little use for long term decisions. Even dictators with longer tenures focus only on that which is immediate and tangible. A disaster which affects people in the next half decade or beyond is past the political event horizon of current decision makers, and will be ignored accordingly.

[Crow Hunter]

I am always open to learning new things but I approach this from an engineering perspective and one of the earliest things that I learned as an engineer (the hard way) is when you have a problem, the first thing you should do is examine and verify your measurement method.

Climatologists state that we have had warming of ~1.5 to 2.0 degrees C since 1850.

So are we saying that measuring temperatures in the 1850s with a hand made thermometer is as accurate as it is today with thermocouples?

Okay, lets say they are.

Very high end incredibly expensive thermocouples at best have a +/- .26 C error when everything is perfect with up to a +/- 2.6 C error as corrosion sets in between the bimetal leads along with background electrical noise.

So, even if everyone measuring temperature in 1850 was using a typical modern thermocouple in the middle of its useful service life, the difference is well within the measurement error.

We know that hand made thermometers from the 1850s are not as accurate or as repeatable as modern thermocouples so there is even more error in that data. There are statistical ways to parse out a good approximation but it is just that an approximation and depending on what starting point you pick we might have "global warming" or it might just be the same.

Personally I am all for "reducing carbon emissions" and pollutants and recycling. I have all LED/CFL lights in my house, I drive a 2010 Toyota Corolla, I keep my Heat at 69 in the winter and my AC on 80 in the summer. I try to reuse and recycle wherever I can. I don't litter and I pick up trash on the side of the road when I walk my dogs. I only buy clothing when my current clothing wears out. I still have a flip phone because it still works. My home computer is from 2003, my laptop is from 2011.

But I think this whole "Day after Tomorrow" panic is stupid and based on a fundamental flaw that is being used as a political tool. I also very firmly believe that those telling us should lead by example. Like Al Gore jetting all over the world and having a mansion in TN that costs $10k/month in utilities/upkeep while berating me how I should "save the planet" and reduce MY standard of living.

Physician heal thyself first.

[FNFAN]

Dude, the overwhelming retort is mountains of empirical evidence. It's difficult to not get exasperated with people who willingly disregard facts.

Have you read the estimates of how much we could effect climate change over a 30 year period? It approximately 1/5th of a degree if we totally cease using fossil fuel. That's an estimate. Meanwhile the sun will still be up there shining down heating us and the other planets in our solar system to a greater or lesser degree based on its activity.

I wanna see the Globalist Warming folks put some skin in the game. If this is as bad as their 'data' indicates and we can only change the temps a small fraction of a degree and have to cease using non-electric vehicles and non-solar or wind electricity.

Lets have an immediate evacuation of all areas that are not > 50' above sea level. When they start clearing the Malibu beaches of homes, the Hamptons of their estates and sea-walling NYC, I'll give serious thought to giving up the Tacoma and Crown Vic, central heating and A/C and the other comforts provided by industry.

Until then they can wee-up-a-rope.

[RoyGBiv]

Dude, the overwhelming retort is mountains of empirical evidence. It's difficult to not get exasperated with people who willingly disregard facts.

Empirical evidence shows that climate is changing. NOT that the cause is anthropogenic. Big distinction.

The embrace of the anthropogenic conclusion is, IMO, largely due to mankind's vanity. "We're awesome, we must be causing it!" combined with an incomplete comprehension of the time scale (millenia) and a predisposition to draw "commonsense" conclusions from incomplete data.

Try not to expire from the exasperation. You're otherwise an agreeable fellow. :)

[RevolverRob]

There are three truths to life.

1) Taxes
2) Extinction is inevitable
3) That people will not stay in their lanes and will argue with credentialed individuals who have dedicated their lives to understanding complex topics

The second and third points are of particular relevance to this thread.

The second point, because global climate change is real, and therefore it could accelerate the inevitable result of extinction.

The third point, because it doesn't matter how many PhDs and thousands of hours one dedicates to understanding and attempting to solve complex questions, someone will always tell you, you are wrong. So, when my scientific colleagues get ignored and belittled, they get a bit frustrated in return, it's understandable - how would you like it if someone came to your job and told you, that you were wrong and doing it wrong? That would be pretty damn annoying.

Here's my solution to this thread and all future ones like it (since this isn't the first one here and won't be the past). Stay the fuck in your lane. And I hate having to appeal to authority on this, but when virtually all of the credentialed individuals, who are qualified to understand and discuss these things are in agreement, then chances are good you are either wrong or ignorant or both. In this particular thread, I see a lot of both.

Also, the argument that you pay taxes and therefore have an opinion on the matter? The amount of spending on climate science is so miniscule that average American taxpayer gets approximately 2/5ths of a cent worth of opinion on this matter. When you've given both your 2/5ths of a cent AND a decade-plus of your life working on these questions, then your opinion can carry real weight. Until then, seriously, stay the fuck in your lane.

The scientists agree, global climate change is real, fucking deal with it. There isn't a secret cabal to steal your tax dollars to support our ramen noodle eating, all night in the lab, lifestyles. We don't wine and dine with politicians or drive Ferraris to fucking work, most of us walk or ride bicycles and life extremely modestly. We aren't brainwashing your kids or relatives. We're reporting our findings and attempting to make them understandable. We're trying to understand complex systems and answer difficult questions. We're dedicated to it with obsessive passion, but we're skeptical assholes to one another, to avoid zealotry. We're people, doing often difficult jobs, for extremely low pay - and some of us are tired of being told we're wrong and get a little fucking irritated, when everyone and their brother's dog who has an internet connection feels qualified to fucking argue with us.

And that's my scientific rant for the day.

Please note - this is a rant. It is not open to discussion nor will I entertain discussions of this. If you quote me, do not expect a response, you won't get one. I'm gonna exit stage left, having said my 2/5ths of a cent + decade of scientific angst piece.

[Bucky]

And that's my scientific rant for the day.

Please note - this is a rant. It is not open to discussion nor will I entertain discussions of this.


Another supporter with the "I am right" and their's no further discussion mindset.

Being agnostic on this issue, and remembering I came here to talk guns and shooting, I'm not sure why I got involved in the first place.

[RoyGBiv]

Stay the fuck in your lane.
Maybe when THIS (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html) stops happening. (credit JoeSixPack, from post #7)

[Peally]

I know it has been politicized so comically heavily and every inbred idiot and his grandmother has posted their opinion about it online that I stopped giving a shit one way or another a long time ago.

See all you assholes on Mars while Earth has it's eternal winter or summer or margarita induced siesta or whatever.

[FNFAN]

The link below is informative, however in the "related links" portion you see a collection of links from all of the Best Men in climate change and their previous dire predictions.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/05/04/flashback-1989-un-issues-10-year-global-warming-tipping-point/

That said, since us mere peons no must no longer voice our opinions when they don't lock step (goose step?) with academicians, regardless of our review of the issue and regardless of climate change officials admissions that it is not about climate it's about redistribution of wealth, I'm off to save some bass from swimming in their ever warming water!

[Default.mp3]

Another supporter with the "I am right" and their's no further discussion mindset.To be fair:
I'm not sure what you think qualifies an individual to state firm opinions about a subject. But let's see: I have a B.A. in Anthropology with a focus on studying past and present material cultures and utilizing stable and unstable isotopes to interpret past climate. I worked as a professional archeologist for three years. I have an M.S. in Geosciences from one of the top 3 ranked programs in the world, with a focus on studying ancient prehistory of Earth over the last 65 million years including considerable work on geoclimate models, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and interpretation of the fossil and geological record. I was hired as an academic lecturer at UT Austin to teach geosciences including paleontology and Earth systems. I am currently a Ph.D. student studying Evolution Biology at the #2 ranked program in the world, with a focus on understanding biogeographic shifts combined with the physical record of prehistory (fossil and geologic record). I have been the author/coauthor and an acknowledged advisor of multiple publications focused on archeological, paleontological, and geological papers. - So, I'm not sure if I am qualified to have a firm opinion on much of anything, but I am damn sure qualified to investigate and interpret scientific and geologic data relevant to the topic at hand. That or the past decade that I have spent studying, discovering, and publishing on data relevant to the question at hand has been entirely wasted. When laypeople constantly have a strong opinion that is antithetical to everything that you know as a scientist in something in your field of study, and I don't see why you would want to debate them. Might as well as a petroleum geologist to "debate" a believer of abiogenic petroleum origins. Or Buzz Aldrin on how the moon landings were faked.

This is not to say that they are necessarily right, but it's fucking exhausting, almost never constructive, and the layperson generally does not have the necessary background knowledge to engage on a similar level, but instead is merely parroting what their preferred experts' statements are.

Also:
Soon, ITT:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IynvPneUpb7SnBe/giphy.gif

Climate change is one of those few things that I've never seen go well on firearms-centric forums; even here, the times it's been brought up here, it didn't go well.Amirite, or amirite?

[GardoneVT]

Humans are a pretty adaptable sort, especially when it’s by necessity.

Seeing as how few politicians have the vision to pass laws to address the problem, and none have political support for the deep economic reforms needed anyways , love it or hate it or deny it we will face the climate change problem as we humans do most long term dilemmas ; procrastination.

[Rex G]

I would rather breath cleaner air, than dirtier air. I can certainly tell the difference, in the air, when I am at home, in Harris County, Texas, and when I am visiting my grandsons, a hundred miles farther inland. I see nothing politically left or right about this.

I spent my childhood year in this same county, but situated closer farther to the east, in a more-industrial area, surounded by petrochemical plants on three sides. When visiting my parents, the air does seem cleaner than it was in the Sixties. Federal regulations did help clean the air. I see nothing politically left or right about this.

I would rather that any water that I touch be clean. Much of my recreational time has been in contact with natural bodies of water, and during my lifetime, federal regulations have increased the amount of this water that is safe for “contact” recreation. I see nothing political left or right about this.

I doubt that the big orange one cares whether I breathe clean air, or whether the water is clean. This is not a leftist or rightist statement, just a sad lament.

[FNFAN]

Another supporter with the "I am right" and their's no further discussion mindset.

Being agnostic on this issue, and remembering I came here to talk guns and shooting, I'm not sure why I got involved in the first place.

Perhaps the higher temperatures caused by scientifically verified, incontrovertible warming have left you piqued? Or maybe when you read bullshit you have to, you know.... call B.S.

[RevolverRob]

Another supporter with the "I am right" and their's no further discussion mindset.

Being agnostic on this issue, and remembering I came here to talk guns and shooting, I'm not sure why I got involved in the first place.

You are mistaken. I've had plenty of discussion and skepticism about this topic. It's not that I am right, it's that most people don't know what they don't know, but insist they are right, when they are usually wrong. That's why the topic is by and large a closed conversation topic for me.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I actually hold an advanced degree in geosciences from a premier institution in that field, and I'm almost complete with an advanced degree in evolutionary biology from another premier global institution, with a focus on studying Life on Earth and, in particular, the fossil record. I've got multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals, grant dollars, and even a couple of awards as a young investigator addressing complex problems related to Earth and Life History. Many of which intersect directly with the field of studying climate change on a global scale.

In other words - I've given a pound of flesh to understanding these issues. And I'm more-or-less tired of being accused of things that I, nor my colleagues do by people who really don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's why I get just a little bit testy.


Maybe when THIS (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html) stops happening. (credit JoeSixPack, from post #7)

The scientific process is not fixed. A mistake was discovered, it was retracted, life goes on. Trust me, 98% of science is wrong on some level. It's the nature of the beast, we're not absolute, nor do we deal in absolutes. If you accept engineers who make mistakes that produce dangerous objects that kill people or physicians who accidentally kill a patient, you'll have to accept that scientists are humans who sometimes make mistakes.

Once again, I'd worry less about this and the modicum of your tax dollars that went to it, than what Congress is doing to your rights. The simple fact of the matter is, scientific spending is so miniscule in this country, particularly compared to health and defense spending - that feeling that you have a significant stake in this game is wrong. You don't.

No one actually does, except for extinction. And I refer back to my three truths. Extinction is inevitable. It's only a matter of WHEN, not if. I've frankly given up on the bulk of climate change policy making. Politicians have sufficiently corrupted the message and the average person is sufficiently scientifically ignorant, that nothing of significance can really be done. At this point people have pretty much established their stances and lack of concern for future generations, that I don't really see too much point in fretting about the policy.

The science is really quite good (mistakes get made from time to time). The truth is climate change is real. It's almost certainly being accelerated by humans; there are too many humans on the planet for us to have significant consequences on this planet. We may not be "destroying the planet" in the most physical sense, but we're simply speeding up our inevitable decline and extinction with wanton disregard for what we're doing. By how much? Who knows. It's inexact and we won't know until we aren't at which point, it ceases to be of much relevance anyways.

___

Okay - I broke my own rule. Now excuse me, I've got to go to a meeting for the secret science soci....err...class I've got to go teach class.

[FNFAN]

I would rather breath cleaner air, than dirtier air. I can certainly tell the difference, in the air, when I am at home, in Harris County, Texas, and when I am visiting my grandsons, a hundred miles farther inland. I see nothing politically left or right about this.

I spent my childhood year in this same county, but situated closer farther to the east, in a more-industrial area, surounded by petrochemical plants on three sides. When visiting my parents, the air does seem cleaner than it was in the Sixties. Federal regulations did help clean the air. I see nothing politically left or right about this.

I would rather that any water that I touch be clean. Much of my recreational time has been in contact with natural bodies of water, and during my lifetime, federal regulations have increased the amount of this water that is safe for “contact” recreation. I see nothing political left or right about this.

I doubt that the big orange one cares whether I breathe clean air, or whether the water is clean. This is not a leftist or rightist statement, just a sad lament.

So you see nothing left or right in folks wanting to shut down industry, cease all but renewable energy production and eliminate fossil fuel powered vehicles? Nothing in the proposals for a tax to pay for United Nations administration of climate policy with the ability to fine offending nations? Now that you have some study time available, you might look at how the environment movement has been co-opted by the ultra Left. I believe it was 2012 that Obama spent twice as much on "climate change" as he did on border security.

Nobody wants China-like air pollution or to go back to rivers that catch fire, but nobody wants to have someone piss on their leg and tell them them, "No, that just rain" either.

[Irelander]

My deal is that we need to be good stewards of the earth...use it but don't abuse it. We should aim to be better at using the earth while not deteriorating our health or the health of the atmosphere needlessly.

I do not think that geoengineering has put us on a path of preserving the earth. Things like spraying the skies with aerosols to protect us from harmful UV rays is doing more harm than good.

[Rex G]

So you see nothing left or right in folks wanting to shut down industry, cease all but renewable energy production and eliminate fossil fuel powered vehicles? Nothing in the proposals for a tax to pay for United Nations administration of climate policy with the ability to fine offending nations? Now that you have some study time available, you might look at how the environment movement has been co-opted by the ultra Left. I believe it was 2012 that Obama spent twice as much on "climate change" as he did on border security.

Nobody wants China-like air pollution or to go back to rivers that catch fire, but nobody wants to have someone piss on their leg and tell them them, "No, that just rain" either.

I said none of those things.

[RoyGBiv]

The science is really quite good (mistakes get made from time to time). The truth is climate change is real. It's almost certainly being accelerated by humans; there are too many humans on the planet for us to have significant consequences on this planet. We may not be "destroying the planet" in the most physical sense, but we're simply speeding up our inevitable decline and extinction with wanton disregard for what we're doing. By how much? Who knows. It's inexact and we won't know until we aren't at which point, it ceases to be of much relevance anyways.

___

Okay - I broke my own rule. Now excuse me, I've got to go to a meeting for the secret science soci....err...class I've got to go teach class.
As a former scientist (analytical chemist with a few years spent monitoring superfund remediation), I'd be interested in reliable (apolitical) articles that shed clear light on the anthropogenic side of climate change.

IMO, we'll be extinct from a biological causality way before we run out of livable climate. Maybe soon enough to save the planet for a few survivors.

[Bucky]

You are mistaken. I've had plenty of discussion and skepticism about this topic. It's not that I am right, it's that most people don't know what they don't know, but insist they are right, when they are usually wrong. That's why the topic is by and large a closed conversation topic for me.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I actually hold an advanced degree in geosciences from a premier institution in that field, and I'm almost complete with an advanced degree in evolutionary biology from another premier global institution, with a focus on studying Life on Earth and, in particular, the fossil record. I've got multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals, grant dollars, and even a couple of awards as a young investigator addressing complex problems related to Earth and Life History. Many of which intersect directly with the field of studying climate change on a global scale.

In other words - I've given a pound of flesh to understanding these issues. And I'm more-or-less tired of being accused of things that I, nor my colleagues do by people who really don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's why I get just a little bit testy.


To be fair, I never said you were wrong, just I was skeptical. I might be late to the discussion, and had missed the intellectual discussions of the past.

When I was in high school, we were told ad nauseum that the world was cooling due to our actions. Now, 20+ years, I'm being told the world is warming. Was the pollution that was causing the cooling different from the pollution that is causing the warming? Were we wrong about the cooling, and if so could we be wrong about the warming? Can you see where the layman might be skeptical?

In addition, this matter has been exploited to the point of even if I did fully believe in global climate change, it's difficult to even care when the poster child for the climate change movement is Al Gore, his mansion, and private jet.

BTW: I thought you were done here. :p
(Yeah, I know that goes for me too :( )

[Bucky]

IMO, we'll be extinct from a biological causality way before we run out of livable climate. Maybe soon enough to save the planet for a few survivors.


^^THIS ^^ or something similar. Iran will have eventually learn to build nuclear weapons, and those will likely warm the globe way faster than any projected man made global warming. Russia had developed the suitcase nuke during the cold war. Imagine Iran or other hostile faction with that technology.

[RevolverRob]

As a former scientist (analytical chemist with a few years spent monitoring superfund remediation), I'd be interested in reliable (apolitical) articles that shed clear light on the anthropogenic side of climate change.

IMO, we'll be extinct from a biological causality way before we run out of livable climate. Maybe soon enough to save the planet for a few survivors.

I can look and see what I find.

But just to be clear, I argued that natural climate change is likely being accelerated by humans. Examples of this are pretty 'common sense'. Example, a simple study of the Mississippi River Delta, showing the role of agricultural development in the Mississippi River Valley. Significant runoff, driven by agriculture has created significant downstream "local" climate shifts. Complete changes in the fauna and flora in the delta. Silt build up is now causing significant issues with water movement and this in turn is one of the causes behind why even sometimes minor hurricanes cause significant flooding in Louisiana. It's also why the floods occurring in the river valley are so much worse.

'Climate change' is of course a scalable term and is contextually dependent. But if you take this example and then look at what's happened to river basins and valleys globally - you see that it's become a globalized phenomena. If it's globalized the only, reasonable, explanation for why is that humans developing agriculture on a sufficient scale has caused this. Particularly, when we look at the historical evidence prior to agriculture and post-agriculture.

By the by, changing river deposition rates, river delta structure, and water flow has a significant impact on ocean currents and temperature. This produces a real difference in where ocean organisms exist and creates instability in the currents and as a result in global weather patterns. Alone, this is probably insufficient to be impactful, but when combined with other anthropogenic originating events and non-anthropogenic originating events it creates complexity which we don't, currently, sufficiently understand. It is what it is, we're getting better at it as we understand these things, but we're not there. The real thing is - we won't ever be all the way there, so we can't let incomplete knowledge stop us now. Numerically, there are too many humans, across the entire planet, to assume we aren't having global effects on the planet that effect climate locally and elsewhere. Some of the alterations to the planet are so significant we can see them from space (i.e. pit mines).

[Joe in PNG]

My question is how will climate change lead to human extinction?

[RevolverRob]

When I was in high school, we were told ad nauseum that the world was cooling due to our actions. Now, 20+ years, I'm being told the world is warming. Was the pollution that was causing the cooling different from the pollution that is causing the warming? Were we wrong about the cooling, and if so could we be wrong about the warming? Can you see where the layman might be skeptical?

We could be wrong about everything. That's a fact of asking questions and in particular scientific ones.

20+ years ago, our climate models were exceptionally limited by our computational and analytical ability, they had far fewer parameters included in them. Some of them didn't even have things like "dirt" in them. Since then, we have things like much more refined analysis, the ability to process and generate terrabytes of data in minutes when a climate model from 1998 might have taken up 3 gigs of space, the figures we make today to show results could be 3 gigs in space.

Science is a process - not fixed - it never was fixed, it just seemed like it, because of pedagogical failure. In other words, it's not that what you were taught was necessarily wrong, it's that the way you were taught that it was wrong. You were almost certainly taught that science had "solved" the problem and "proven" everything right/wrong. When 20+ years ago you were really just taught the state of knowledge then and there is an ever-changing state of knowledge and refinement of what's going on.

There's a common bit of knowledge amongst scientists writ large, that pretty much everything written in a text book was out of date before it was even published. It's just a reality of the constant changing state of knowledge. It is unceasing and to be honest, not even a dedicated amateur could keep up with all of the information coming out on a daily basis, because the dedicated professionals often struggle and do not keep up with their given fields. I could read 12-hours a day, 7-days a week just papers written in English (my native language) and still not get "caught up" with the historical and current literature, I might catch up in 50 years. I read five languages, because I've had to learn them to read literature published elsewhere. Add in those languages? It's impossible. So there are always gaps in our knowledge and it's why we get paid, ramen noodle money, to be experts in these things. :eek:

[RevolverRob]

My question is how will climate change lead to human extinction?

Now that's an awesome question Joe.

There are potentially many scenarios, not all are equally plausible or possible. The one I'm going to describe is theoretical but one which we might postulate to investigate.

Let's take the river valley issue I described previously. Because of the destablization of local runoff, floods are worse and ultimately impact the ability of those regions to produce very necessary food stuffs. At first it's no big deal, but eventually we get a bad series of years that extend across a longer period of time (decades, think dustbowl-type scenario). IF we have enough food stuffs elsewhere and the ability to make them, it's no big deal, right? Right.

But if this continues to happen on a long enough time scale (hundreds to thousands of years). It will eventually lead to both population decline and populations that are taxing whatever meager resources they have, particularly the larger populations. Add in one of two big natural events (super volcano explosion of Yellowstone, for instance) and now those limited resources become virtually non-existent. Eventually, a cascading effect produces smaller and smaller populations, until a single flood or a single drought can cause the extinction of the remaining individuals.

Now, as you can imagine there is an alignment of circumstances needed for this extinction event to occur. And at in given stage, the species in question may be able to side-step the problem. And well, we might. But add climate-change exacerbated issues with other problems - say I dunno, an extremely lethal version of Ebola that kills fast once symptoms show, but individuals are asymptomatic for weeks of months even. Now you're taxing the system in another way, add in the climate change taxing, and you're creating a higher probability for an "extinction event". Keep adding factors (overcrowding, dirty water, etc) and you're eventually building towards a high probability event.

And eventually - time wins. Earth is 4.3+ billion years old and the current heat death of our universe is another ~5-7 billion years away. In any given year an extinction probability for a species is virtually zero, but it can in fact be a roll of the dice. Given enough years, eventually you roll a one and you go extinct.

[SAWBONES]

You are mistaken. I've had plenty of discussion and skepticism about this topic. It's not that I am right, it's that most people don't know what they don't know, but insist they are right, when they are usually wrong. That's why the topic is by and large a closed conversation topic for me.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I actually hold an advanced degree in geosciences from a premier institution in that field, and I'm almost complete with an advanced degree in evolutionary biology from another premier global institution, with a focus on studying Life on Earth and, in particular, the fossil record. I've got multiple publications in peer-reviewed journals, grant dollars, and even a couple of awards as a young investigator addressing complex problems related to Earth and Life History. Many of which intersect directly with the field of studying climate change on a global scale.

In other words - I've given a pound of flesh to understanding these issues. And I'm more-or-less tired of being accused of things that I, nor my colleagues do by people who really don't know what the fuck they're talking about. That's why I get just a little bit testy.



The scientific process is not fixed. A mistake was discovered, it was retracted, life goes on. Trust me, 98% of science is wrong on some level. It's the nature of the beast, we're not absolute, nor do we deal in absolutes. If you accept engineers who make mistakes that produce dangerous objects that kill people or physicians who accidentally kill a patient, you'll have to accept that scientists are humans who sometimes make mistakes.

Once again, I'd worry less about this and the modicum of your tax dollars that went to it, than what Congress is doing to your rights. The simple fact of the matter is, scientific spending is so miniscule in this country, particularly compared to health and defense spending - that feeling that you have a significant stake in this game is wrong. You don't.

No one actually does, except for extinction. And I refer back to my three truths. Extinction is inevitable. It's only a matter of WHEN, not if. I've frankly given up on the bulk of climate change policy making. Politicians have sufficiently corrupted the message and the average person is sufficiently scientifically ignorant, that nothing of significance can really be done. At this point people have pretty much established their stances and lack of concern for future generations, that I don't really see too much point in fretting about the policy.

The science is really quite good (mistakes get made from time to time). The truth is climate change is real. It's almost certainly being accelerated by humans; there are too many humans on the planet for us to have significant consequences on this planet. We may not be "destroying the planet" in the most physical sense, but we're simply speeding up our inevitable decline and extinction with wanton disregard for what we're doing. By how much? Who knows. It's inexact and we won't know until we aren't at which point, it ceases to be of much relevance anyways.

___

Okay - I broke my own rule. Now excuse me, I've got to go to a meeting for the secret science soci....err...class I've got to go teach class.




Excellent, rational post.

"It's not that I am right, it's that most people don't know what they don't know, but insist they are right..."

Right on the money!


No question that "climate change" is occurring, and of course has been occurring in one direction or another, since the planet has existed, and that at times such change has been inimical to human life.

As to the degree to which human activity has contributed to current climate change, that's an altogether separate and essentially unknown issue. Granted that since the Industrial Revolution, there may well be a human effect on global warming, but we don't actually know that to be the case, nor can we quantify any such effect as may be genuinely present.

Thank you for taking the necessary time & trouble to state some accurate and sensible information on this subject, RevolverRob.

Almost all of the popular press and internet blather on climate change assumes too much, states unknowns as though they represented Incontrovertible Truth, and appeals to peoples' emotional investment in "causes".

Would that everyone who enters the discussion would attempt to become truly educated on the objective science regarding climate change (rather than only the "vested-interest-ignorant" who seem to believe that Googling a topic represents "research", and gives them all the education they need), and stop making it a cause célèbre.

[Default.mp3]

https://i.imgur.com/o64vjnL.png
Not saying Enel was intentionally troll baiting, just funny that he hasn't been back into his own thread.

[spinmove_]

There are three truths to life.

1) Taxes
2) Extinction is inevitable
3) That people will not stay in their lanes and will argue with credentialed individuals who have dedicated their lives to understanding complex topics

The second and third points are of particular relevance to this thread.

The second point, because global climate change is real, and therefore it could accelerate the inevitable result of extinction.

The third point, because it doesn't matter how many PhDs and thousands of hours one dedicates to understanding and attempting to solve complex questions, someone will always tell you, you are wrong. So, when my scientific colleagues get ignored and belittled, they get a bit frustrated in return, it's understandable - how would you like it if someone came to your job and told you, that you were wrong and doing it wrong? That would be pretty damn annoying.

Here's my solution to this thread and all future ones like it (since this isn't the first one here and won't be the past). Stay the fuck in your lane. And I hate having to appeal to authority on this, but when virtually all of the credentialed individuals, who are qualified to understand and discuss these things are in agreement, then chances are good you are either wrong or ignorant or both. In this particular thread, I see a lot of both.

Also, the argument that you pay taxes and therefore have an opinion on the matter? The amount of spending on climate science is so miniscule that average American taxpayer gets approximately 2/5ths of a cent worth of opinion on this matter. When you've given both your 2/5ths of a cent AND a decade-plus of your life working on these questions, then your opinion can carry real weight. Until then, seriously, stay the fuck in your lane.

The scientists agree, global climate change is real, fucking deal with it. There isn't a secret cabal to steal your tax dollars to support our ramen noodle eating, all night in the lab, lifestyles. We don't wine and dine with politicians or drive Ferraris to fucking work, most of us walk or ride bicycles and life extremely modestly. We aren't brainwashing your kids or relatives. We're reporting our findings and attempting to make them understandable. We're trying to understand complex systems and answer difficult questions. We're dedicated to it with obsessive passion, but we're skeptical assholes to one another, to avoid zealotry. We're people, doing often difficult jobs, for extremely low pay - and some of us are tired of being told we're wrong and get a little fucking irritated, when everyone and their brother's dog who has an internet connection feels qualified to fucking argue with us.

And that's my scientific rant for the day.

Please note - this is a rant. It is not open to discussion nor will I entertain discussions of this. If you quote me, do not expect a response, you won't get one. I'm gonna exit stage left, having said my 2/5ths of a cent + decade of scientific angst piece.

I kinda agree with this. My post above simply stems from the fact that throwing carbony black stuff everywhere probably isn’t the cleanest way to do things. I also try to do my part in being as energy minimalist as possible. I doubt we’re going to see the ultimate outcome of all of this within our lifetimes, but I’ve been wrong before. It couldn’t hurt to be cleaner and more efficient though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Not saying Enel was intentionally troll baiting, just funny that he hasn't been back into his own thread.

He's too busy treating the wounded. It's the physician's version of ambulance chasing. Everyone's gotta make a living, whether it's sewing up the victims or suing someone in court. ;)

[willie]

In the early 1960's many vociferously opposed efforts to pass "clean air and water" laws. Various industries lobbied against any environmental quality legislation. Conservatives by droves complained. Today, decades later, some with the same mindset get their panties twisted when climate change topics arise. Yet, these folks have no idea how terrible some practices were in yesteryear when their now deceased friends and relatives were ranting about liberals's views on the environment. In 1968 as a gag I asked an older man what he thought about poontang. He said, "If they're going to bomb Hanoi, they need to bomb the hell out of poontang too." I see this level of sophistication in climate change debates.

[Joe in PNG]

Another question- haven't previous human driven events like the Colombian exchange already changed the climate in various negative ways?

[peterb]

I don’t understand the argument that reducing waste necessarily reduces the standard of living. If you build a structure using best practices for energy efficiency, it costs less to live in and is more comfortable. Where’s the problem?

But some folks seem to think it’s all or nothing, and you get “Those tree-huggers want me to freeze in the dark!” yahoos who roll coal at bicyclists. Sheesh.

Petroleum is so useful as a feedstock for chemical processes that it seems foolish to burn it if there are reasonable alternatives.

[GardoneVT]

I don’t understand the argument that reducing waste necessarily reduces the standard of living. If you build a structure using best practices for energy efficiency, it costs less to live in and is more comfortable. Where’s the problem?


Welcome to my lane.

The problem is cost. This is a broad generalization, but advanced and more efficient technology costs money. For sustainable technology to make an aggregate difference, it has to replace existing technology. Therein lies a problem; no economically reasonable person or government is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to own a sustainable version of technology that already does a specific job.

Take a business; while converting it to run on solar power nets a long term energy and climate benefit to both the business owner and society as a whole , it increases the upfront construction costs substantially compared to a less sustainable alternative. So what happens to Mr Green when his competitor Mr Brown sets up shop using cheaper and less efficient construction? He goes out of business since Mr Brown has lower capital costs and lower prices.Thats the ground floor view.

The big picture view is instead of surplus revenue going back into businesses and labor development which improves economic productivity - thus standard of living- money is instead spent on higher component costs to achieve the same output in an environmentally beneficial way.

[Joe in PNG]

I don’t understand the argument that reducing waste necessarily reduces the standard of living. If you build a structure using best practices for energy efficiency, it costs less to live in and is more comfortable. Where’s the problem?
But some folks seem to think it’s all or nothing, and you get “Those tree-huggers want me to freeze in the dark!” yahoos who roll coal at bicyclists. Sheesh.
Petroleum is so useful as a feedstock for chemical processes that it seems foolish to burn it if there are reasonable alternatives.

The problem is the people who want to use the environment as a means to take more power for themselves. After all, if you control a man's property, you also control his life and liberty.

Which brings up another problem- centralized, top down government solutions to problems seem to make a whole lot of logical sense- and will work to a very limited extent. But the inevitable result is a big, bloated bureaucracy that needs more money and more power to do anything- if they're not doing something downright counterproductive with lots of unintended consequences.

[Crow Hunter]

I don’t understand the argument that reducing waste necessarily reduces the standard of living. If you build a structure using best practices for energy efficiency, it costs less to live in and is more comfortable. Where’s the problem?

But some folks seem to think it’s all or nothing, and you get “Those tree-huggers want me to freeze in the dark!” yahoos who roll coal at bicyclists. Sheesh.

Petroleum is so useful as a feedstock for chemical processes that it seems foolish to burn it if there are reasonable alternatives.

I can speak to a small example from my neck of the woods.

I live in Tennessee. We have relatively cheap power from TVA. While some of it is hydroelectric, a huge amount of it is coal. Because I live in Tennessee, my cost of living is much lower than someone living in another state, part of that lower cost of living is paying significantly less per KWH. Because the cost of living is so low in my neck of the woods, I can get by on a lower salary and still live pretty well, so my company doesn't compensate me nearly as much as it would if I lived in a HCOL area.

If we change our power generation to a significantly more expensive but lower carbon emissions method, my costs of living goes up. The company I am working for will also have to pay more to run the lights and power the computer that I use to design their products they are going to have to raise their prices or pay me less. In a global economy where I am competing with very competent Indian and Chinese engineers with access to the internet and my company is competing with other companies who may be designing and making products overseas utilizing these engineers, the chances of them giving me a raise to cover MY increased costs are pretty low.

So now my electricity costs go up but my pay doesn't. So, like my company, I have to reduce my costs. I can only reduce my costs by doing without something that I used to have. That will lower my standard of living. If all companies everywhere have to do that, costs will go up and when they go up and my pay doesn't, I will have an even further loss of my standard of living.

If someone could show me that humans are causing this and it isn't just naturally occurring phenomenon (not just a hockey stick graph), then I would be willing to accept a reduction to help sustain the environment. However, when "the powers that be" that are telling me to reduce/recycle/reuse while not reducing THEIR standard of living first, that tells me that it must not really be that big of a deal.

Kind of like if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that when I leave work in a couple of minutes that I am going to get hit by a car when I come up to a specific intersection, I would go a different way home, even though it would take me longer to get there, I know I would be safer. The fact that Al Gore and his ilk still have private jets, still live in multiple monstrously huge and expensive homes, and fly to expensive resorts to have their conferences instead of telecommuting tells me that they don't really believe there is a truck that is going to hit them at an intersection.

[Doc_Glock]

Not saying Enel was intentionally troll baiting, just funny that he hasn't been back into his own thread.

Nope. I have been reading along. Just trying to shut my trap and learn from folks. If my question was completely honest it would have been: I have no idea if the warming thing is legit or not. Can someone point me in the right direction?

I learned so much from the giant atheism thread I thought it was worth a try.

[blues]

Nope. I have been reading along. Just trying to shut my trap and learn from folks. If my question was completely honest it would have been: I have no idea if the warming thing is legit or not. Can someone point me in the right direction?

I learned so much from the giant atheism thread I thought it was worth a try.


Well, maybe now that you're on such good footing with the Creator perhaps you can use your influence to get an answer for us. ;)


(Dodging lightning strikes. Or not...as the case may be.)

[Joe in PNG]

Another UUUUUUGE!!! problems is one that's dogged the scientific community for ages- the Media is just plain stupid, and doesn't understand science.

And global climate is a super complex, ever changing field of study in which there's significant areas of "we just don't know yet" (like most sciences have significant areas of "we just don't know yet").
Then the media comes along, and as usual, their main concern is "how can we report on this in such a way as to get more views/clicks?". Since properly educational articles with lots of balance are "boring", we get lots of worst case "the sky is falling!" panic articles.

And that's bad because the worst case "the sky is falling!" panic articles are easily disproved, even if the underlying problem still exist.

[peterb]

I can speak to a small example from my neck of the woods.

I live in Tennessee. We have relatively cheap power from TVA. While some of it is hydroelectric, a huge amount of it is coal. Because I live in Tennessee, my cost of living is much lower than someone living in another state, part of that lower cost of living is paying significantly less per KWH. Because the cost of living is so low in my neck of the woods, I can get by on a lower salary and still live pretty well, so my company doesn't compensate me nearly as much as it would if I lived in a HCOL area.

If we change our power generation to a significantly more expensive but lower carbon emissions method, my costs of living goes up. The company I am working for will also have to pay more to run the lights and power the computer that I use to design their products they are going to have to raise their prices or pay me less. In a global economy where I am competing with very competent Indian and Chinese engineers with access to the internet and my company is competing with other companies who may be designing and making products overseas utilizing these engineers, the chances of them giving me a raise to cover MY increased costs are pretty low.

So now my electricity costs go up but my pay doesn't. So, like my company, I have to reduce my costs. I can only reduce my costs by doing without something that I used to have. That will lower my standard of living. If all companies everywhere have to do that, costs will go up and when they go up and my pay doesn't, I will have an even further loss of my standard of living.

If someone could show me that humans are causing this and it isn't just naturally occurring phenomenon (not just a hockey stick graph), then I would be willing to accept a reduction to help sustain the environment. However, when "the powers that be" that are telling me to reduce/recycle/reuse while not reducing THEIR standard of living first, that tells me that it must not really be that big of a deal.

I agree that hipocrisy leaves a bad taste.

What if you didn’t change your energy source but lived in a home that was much more efficient? Your cost of living would be less. How is that a problem?

Existing buildings can be expensive to retrofit, but there’s no good reason to be building inefficient new homes and commercial structures. The few small initial construction cost increase will pay for itself many times over the life of the structure, and you get a more comfortable home without draft or cold spots.

It drives me nuts to see architecture in the Southwest that ignores everything humans have learned about living in hot climates other than “crank up the A/C”. No roof overhangs, south-facing glass...... And then you see uninsulated A/C ducts running through attics that get to 140+ on a hot day. Why?

I know — people respond to incentives, and saving a buck now will win over saving ten times that down the road.

https://www.ornl.gov/news/new-oak-ridge-homes-are-laboratories-energy-efficiency
“The four houses, located in the Wolf Creek subdivision in Oak Ridge, use about 55 to 60 percent less energy than conventional houses while maintaining similar amenities.”

[RevolverRob]

Another question- haven't previous human driven events like the Colombian exchange already changed the climate in various negative ways?

By most measures, yes.

But let’s put it context, the Colombian Exchange is miniscule in scale compared to the Industrial Revolution. That revolution is miniscule in scale compared to the digital revolution.

The scale is both spatial and numerical. The population of humans on Earth is at its highest ever. Any one individual can make a significany impact on their local, but probably not regional environment. Small populations can effect regions. Species populations can effect entire ecosystems.

Earth is big and complex a species can affect change on a global scale by having large populations numbers or by being large in size. Remembering that most life on Earth are bacteria, humans have both huge population numbers AND huge size. Add in our propensity to breed, a global distribution, and long life spans - we’re in the top five species of influence globally (various bacteria, arthropods, and plants are ahead of us).

[farscott]

If you have ever been to Shanghai or Beijing in the last ten years, the moment you exit the aircraft you can see that people are impacting the environment in ways that are both unhealthy and likely to impact climate. When I last landed in Shanghai, the moment the aircraft doors opened I could smell and feel a diesel-like oil. It became uncomfortable to breathe and my chest ached. The city was shrouded in gloom as the pollution actually made it seem like a dark winter day at dusk. When it rained, the streets ran with crud, and my coat became oily. One of my team had to return early because he became asthmatic. No doubt caused by man, no doubt unhealthy, and no doubt that if not stopped it will impact the climate. How? I am not smart enough to say (going to guess less sunlight is not a good thing), but I give thanks to President Nixon and the EPA.

And that is enough for me. I do not need science about rising ocean levels and how that will impact the quality of life as the above is already shouting about what people are doing to the environment. Sure a volcano can do worse, but we do not need to try and equal the volcano.

I think the politicians approached the issue all wrong. Rather than use science to try and extrapolate changes, show people what happens in places like Shanghai. People mistrust projections, especially about things that are hard to understand, but will internalize what I experienced in Shanghai. Lord knows, I did.

[GardoneVT]

If you have ever been to Shanghai or Beijing in the last ten years, the moment you exit the aircraft you can see that people are impacting the environment in ways that are both unhealthy and likely to impact climate. When I last landed in Shanghai, the moment the aircraft doors opened I could smell and feel a diesel-like oil. It became uncomfortable to breathe and my chest ached. The city was shrouded in gloom as the pollution actually made it seem like a dark winter day at dusk. When it rained, the streets ran with crud, and my coat became oily. One of my team had to return early because he became asthmatic. No doubt caused by man, no doubt unhealthy, and no doubt that if not stopped it will impact the climate. How? I am not smart enough to say (going to guess less sunlight is not a good thing), but I give thanks to President Nixon and the EPA.


An excellent example. It’s not a pleasant environment; but millions live with it day in and day out, and that lack of environmental regulation and sustainability costs are a big reason why China has a large manufacturing sector and the US does not.

[peterb]

The problem is the people who want to use the environment as a means to take more power for themselves. After all, if you control a man's property, you also control his life and liberty.

So why wouldn’t you want to reduce your personal energy consumption, and hence reduce your reliance on MegaEnergyCo? If you are less affected by changes in energy prices and supplies, doesn’t that increase your personal freedom?

The politics of conservatives being opposed to conservation never made sense to me. An infinitely sustainable lifestyle would seem to be the conservative ideal.

[Joe in PNG]

So why wouldn’t you want to reduce your personal energy consumption, and hence reduce your reliance on MegaEnergyCo? If you are less affected by changes in energy prices and supplies, doesn’t that increase your personal freedom?

Yes I do. But that's different from the Government mandating something you can't afford, that they're going to have to spend a lot of money to fix in 20 years time*, and that increases the size and scope of the bureaucracy (and the size and scope or the red tape one has to do) isn't the way to do it.



*Notice how a whole lot of environmental problems are a result of a previous government environmental solution, or other well meaning government policy in line with the prevailing scientific thought of the day? Kudzu, the Everglades, various dams and irrigation projects, most Superfund sites, and so on.

[GardoneVT]

So why wouldn’t you want to reduce your personal energy consumption, and hence reduce your reliance on MegaEnergyCo?

Because it costs more money. Were it not for substantial government subsidies, the only electric cars and wind farms you’d see would be in school textbooks.

Returning to the problem of climate change mitigation, another nail in the coffin is the pragmatic fact people are going to cheat.Even if politicians globally all united in will to address the problem, those noble intentions would collapse into a litany of scandals and fraud. See VW Diselgate as an example of what most companies will do when faced with tough environmental targets.

[peterb]

To be fair, some of those cases you mentioned — the Everglades draining, for example — had a lot of backing from commercial interests. Big Sugar and the real estate industry have had a lot of influence on Everglades policy over the years. It wasn’t just folks in Washington dreaming it up.

Hubris paired with the desire to control nature never seems to work out well. I read a book on the history of fishing in my home state since Colonial times, and it’s humbling to see how every generation said “well, we made mistakes before, but now we really do know what we’re doing.” 20 years later, repeat.

I do believe that our scientific knowledge has improved. Our political wisdom, not so much.......

[peterb]

Because it costs more money. Were it not for substantial government subsidies, the only electric cars and wind farms you’d see would be in school textbooks.

And the fossil fuel industries receive no indirect subsidies through government policies? Those lobbyists need to work harder. ;-)

One can often reduce consumption without changing energy sources, have a reasonable payback period, and have a small but positive impact.

I understand that everything’s a tradeoff, that one has to calculate lifecycle energy costs, and that anyone offering “simple” solutions should rightly be viewed with suspicion. But reducing consumption by increasing efficiency is usually a low-risk strategy.

[Peally]

Big Sugar

I think she was in one of my college classes.

[GJM]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-is-affordable-1543362461

[Peally]

Paywall. Also who pays for news? Shame of a million shames.

[Crow Hunter]

I agree that hipocrisy leaves a bad taste.

What if you didn’t change your energy source but lived in a home that was much more efficient? Your cost of living would be less. How is that a problem?

Existing buildings can be expensive to retrofit, but there’s no good reason to be building inefficient new homes and commercial structures. The few small initial construction cost increase will pay for itself many times over the life of the structure, and you get a more comfortable home without draft or cold spots.

It drives me nuts to see architecture in the Southwest that ignores everything humans have learned about living in hot climates other than “crank up the A/C”. No roof overhangs, south-facing glass...... And then you see uninsulated A/C ducts running through attics that get to 140+ on a hot day. Why?

I know — people respond to incentives, and saving a buck now will win over saving ten times that down the road.

https://www.ornl.gov/news/new-oak-ridge-homes-are-laboratories-energy-efficiency
“The four houses, located in the Wolf Creek subdivision in Oak Ridge, use about 55 to 60 percent less energy than conventional houses while maintaining similar amenities.”

It would be my guess that buying a newer, more energy efficient home would probably do even more to reduce my standard of living than living in my currently mortgage free less energy efficient home. ;)

ETA: Fixed my stupid syntax :)

[RevolverRob]

I went to as fascinating lecture today that addressed the history of the term and idea of the "biosphere". One which so accurately demonstrates the discontinuity between science policy and science process and simultaneously demonstrates the role of politics in influencing scientific thought. I'll keep it short, because there is a forthcoming book on this topic - but effectively the idea of the biosphere as a stable system flourished as a scientific idea under a political culture in a time of instability (Cold War). Throughout the entire length of the Cold War work studying "the biosphere" (as though it was a cohesive body of work, it was not, merely presented in this framework by its proponents) sought to demonstrate its stability, not instability. The idea, that even in the face of nuclear war that ecological systems would return to a steady state was both politically calming and, of course, highly relevant, given the potential for a nuclear war.

Today, we recognize that the biosphere is not stable, at all scales. This is a critical recognition that has been with scientists since the 1970s, but one which is only now beginning to reach our culture on a large scale. Global Climate Change as a philosophical idea, is an idea that is predicated on instability. Scientists knew that instability was the name of the game, not long after the term "biosphere" came into existence (in the early 1950s), but it took another three decades of evidence to demonstrate instability is more common than stability to convince the supporters. It's also not a comfy idea and there needed to exist a cultural change (end of the Cold War) to allow these ideas to take hold beyond academic circles. This is one reason why in the 1950s-1980s, "climate change" was merely taught as "natural fluctuations, everything will be okay", where as in the late 1980s through today, we recognize that instability is common and that rapid oscillations can cause, unpredictable, changes in a system.

This combined with a radically changing analytical landscape is one of the reasons why what was taught in the past is simply incorrect today. I further remind folks that science is not steady, but is in fact exceptionally dynamic. The trickle down to the general person, who isn't reading, "Earth Review Quarterly" or attending conferences and lectures where the latest information is being presented, before it is even published, is at best 5 years behind in their knowledge and more than like 15-20 years behind in their understanding. When combined with the cultural idea that we're going to "Science" our way out of all of our problems, because scientists know everything, this is a daunting philosophical position to be put in. You're simultaneously confronting an ignorance of the scientific process and an ignorance of the current state of science. And while we, the scientists, know that sometimes it's a bit patronizing, to some degree you'll have to just "trust us", because to explain it all would take far too long.

That said, if you really want to know, there are no secrets here, we'll teach you everything we know and how to learn more. Quit you day job and join a research lab. You'll learn quickly and learn a lot. It takes ~7 years or so or excellent, dedicated, training to make a good scientist (i.e., one that can speak the language of science and identify questions, hypotheses, and tests for a given field of study). At that point, you'll rather quickly be able to pick up the bulk of any scientific principle and rapidly learn about the complexities of a given system. But if you aren't going to give it 7 dedicated full-time years, you'll need about 20 part-time years to get to the same level. Otherwise, you'll probably just have to "trust us".

[Peally]

Talking down to your audience isn't going to convince anyone of anything FWIW.

[RoyGBiv]

Today, we recognize that the biosphere is not stable, at all scales. This is a critical recognition that has been with scientists since the 1970s, but one which is only now beginning to reach our culture on a large scale. Global Climate Change as a philosophical idea, is an idea that is predicated on instability. Scientists knew that instability was the name of the game, not long after the term "biosphere" came into existence (in the early 1950s), but it took another three decades of evidence to demonstrate instability is more common than stability to convince the supporters. It's also not a comfy idea and there needed to exist a cultural change (end of the Cold War) to allow these ideas to take hold beyond academic circles. This is one reason why in the 1950s-1980s, "climate change" was merely taught as "natural fluctuations, everything will be okay", where as in the late 1980s through today, we recognize that instability is common and that rapid oscillations can cause, unpredictable, changes in a system.

This combined with a radically changing analytical landscape is one of the reasons why what was taught in the past is simply incorrect today. I further remind folks that science is not steady, but is in fact exceptionally dynamic. The trickle down to the general person, who isn't reading, "Earth Review Quarterly" or attending conferences and lectures where the latest information is being presented, before it is even published, is at best 5 years behind in their knowledge and more than like 15-20 years behind in their understanding. When combined with the cultural idea that we're going to "Science" our way out of all of our problems, because scientists know everything, this is a daunting philosophical position to be put in. You're simultaneously confronting an ignorance of the scientific process and an ignorance of the current state of science. And while we, the scientists, know that sometimes it's a bit patronizing, to some degree you'll have to just "trust us", because to explain it all would take far too long.

TLDR version.

"The only constant is change."

[blues]

Talking down to your audience isn't going to convince anyone of anything FWIW.

Good luck with that.

[RevolverRob]

Talking down to your audience isn't going to convince anyone of anything FWIW.

Unfortunately, the complexity and detail of the problems in question require substantial effort to understand. The only way to convey them is to simplify them. There is an exceptionally fine line between “simplification” and “talking down”. Most scientists (myself included) suck at it.

I’ve generally made it a point in my career to avoid discussing science with non-scientists. We all have our exceptions and our strengths. For instance, I SUCK at talking to a “general” audience about what I do. But stick me in a room with half a dozen people? Everyone comes out knowing and understanding more with a better sense of what scientists do and don’t do. My bread is buttered with small groups, where I can work with each individual. I’ll almost certainly never be giving a TED Talk or on CNN as a talking science head. That’s not my personality, nor strength. But you’ll find me at donor luncheons and mixers, you’ll find me working behind the scenes to improve science education and knowledge. Testify to Congress? Absolutely. Talk to Jon Stewart? Not a chance.

[45dotACP]

A bit late to this party, but approaching it from the perspective of a man who enjoys the fruits of our land (hunting, hiking etc) it would occur to me to be a good steward of that land.

We are not the worst polluters in the world, not are we in the USA totally responsible for climate change, but to categorically deny the effect humans have on their environment as all being bro-science is a bit naive, especially for me, living near a city than reversed the flow of the river it sits on.

There's an upside to this however...

Life tends to adapt. Human life maybe not so much, but biological life is found in environments so hostile that we could make the planet uninhabitable for humans and we would die off long before the planet lost the ability to sustain life. Shit would evolve, perhaps in a few more million years, "intelligent" life would resurface...and the cycle would start over from the stone age and then perhaps at some point an internet forum about weapons would develop and sentient beings would discuss the likelihood of climate change being real...again.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Wondering Beard]

TLDR version.

"The only constant is change."

"If you must label the absolute, use its proper name: Temporary.” Leto II

[Cookie Monster]

I heard a talk from some BLM and FS guys recently who mentioned the huge increase in the portion of their budget that is spent fighting fires. In your opinion, do you think this has anything to do with laws preventing clear-cutting or other fire management practices? Could it be related to increases in development in fire-prone areas?


I don't have the numbers quite perfect but 30 years ago Forest Service and BLM was 65% Recreation and Natural Resources work and 1/3rd Fire. Now that has flip, and every year fire suppression takes more and more of the budget for everything else including fuel reduction treatments which might help with the problem.

As a lot of things, it is complex and this is only my opinion:

1) Fires have gotten more and more complex and federal agencies have raised their professionalism and training to match that. Back 30 or 40 years ago, a handcrew of wildland firefighters could be a group of timber markers or forestry workers. Fire fighting is not their everyday thing. That would be very odd in this day and age. Back in the day, all the field going employees fought fire in one way or another. So it just makes sense to have more and more people with fire suppression as their fulltime gig.

2) Clearcuts actually increase fire behavior and resistance to control in the short term - only the bole wood is removed. 6 feet of slash and tree limbs is not something to fight fire in.

More of the meat of the issue:

3) We have had 100 years of fire suppression, all fire is bad, put every fire out now and the fuel loading in the woods just gets more and more and more, so we have 40 years of more fuel then 40 years ago when big, destructive fires weren't the norm.

4) We as federal land management agencies have gotten tied up and tied ourselves up with bad practices in the past and well as getting bogged down in long, inefficient environmental analysis processes. I am seeing that change.

5) The last two fires in the news Woolsey and Camp were in brush and grass and mixed low density oaks and pine (not dense enough for any commercial management/logging). It is the drought and climate change and exceptional alignment of an ignition with the best/worse weather conditions. The Woolsey fire, that is what that ecosystem does in regular cycles.

All I got for now. Its a crazy world out there, lots of moving parts, and opinion.

[willie]

I have 90 semester hours of biology with half being graduate. I've been reading the literature in ecology for more than 45 years. Not once did I get the impression that the biosphere was stable. Early on I was taught that over time data can change and data interpretation changes. The idea that "truth" changes over time is not a new one. I taught these ideas in high school biology. They were themes of the BSCS(commercial curriculum in biology)50 years ago. On a related idea, has anyone pointed out that within the former USSR states and their former Eastern European satellite countries that much of this area is a chemical wasteland? Or that today their emphases on air and water quality may be similar to China's, Mexico's, and that of Central and South America?

[OlongJohnson]

If you have ever been to Shanghai or Beijing in the last ten years, the moment you exit the aircraft you can see that people are impacting the environment in ways that are both unhealthy and likely to impact climate. When I last landed in Shanghai, the moment the aircraft doors opened I could smell and feel a diesel-like oil. It became uncomfortable to breathe and my chest ached. The city was shrouded in gloom as the pollution actually made it seem like a dark winter day at dusk. When it rained, the streets ran with crud, and my coat became oily. One of my team had to return early because he became asthmatic. No doubt caused by man, no doubt unhealthy, and no doubt that if not stopped it will impact the climate. How? I am not smart enough to say (going to guess less sunlight is not a good thing), but I give thanks to President Nixon and the EPA.

And that is enough for me. I do not need science about rising ocean levels and how that will impact the quality of life as the above is already shouting about what people are doing to the environment. Sure a volcano can do worse, but we do not need to try and equal the volcano.

I think the politicians approached the issue all wrong. Rather than use science to try and extrapolate changes, show people what happens in places like Shanghai. People mistrust projections, especially about things that are hard to understand, but will internalize what I experienced in Shanghai. Lord knows, I did.

It really, seriously bothers me that the environmental lobby machine has, in the past ~decade, changed to referring to CO2 emissions as "dirty." In my mind, that's actually counterproductive, because it more effectively lumps toxic-now pollution with something that's only becoming problematic gradually, and makes it easier for people who are motivated to push back on the proposed climate change response agendas to also push back on any concern about toxic-now pollution. Unintended consequences...


The way I see the debate is that people who are "climate concerned" take the position that, "If this is happening, then we must all __________ immediately to stop it! If you don't want to _________ immediately, or have any idea that that may not be the best response, then you are a BAD PERSON."

Many people who think that doing ___________ immediately and to the maximum possible extent may not be the best response seek to avoid the debate about BAD PERSON by simply denying the first part of the premise, which is that it is happening.

There aren't a lot of public figures separating the question of whether and to what extent it's happening and what we could do to slow or stop it ("IS"), if anything, from what we should do to slow or stop it, if anything ("OUGHT").

I don't expect the public debate to become intelligent or effective until those two groups of questions are unhitched from each other. It's been said that you can't get "ought" from "is." I think one of the reasons this debate is such a CF is because one side has presented it as "is"=>"must," and the other side has accepted that framing and pushed back on the "is" (questions of facts) rather than on the "must" (questions of morality and ethics).

[Dorsai]

Climate is always changing. Most of the time, it changes very slowly compared to our life span. Consequently, an old person may be able to observe a difference between what he experiences now vs. his memories of what conditions were when he was a child. But that doesn't necessarily mean the climate has changed, it may be cyclical changes based on the ocean currents. Small bit of humor here, but it's mostly true. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. People frequently confuse the two. A couple of years of "bad" weather and the news calls it climate change, or climate change induced weather severity. Total BS. My local news stations are big at this. Every damn morning they report what the temperatures will be and label them as above normal or below normal (though they rarely use "below normal" even when they do with the same difference in the other direction). They confuse normal with average. Normal weather, i.e. temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. has a wide variation that is normal. Average isn't normal, it's just a number in the middle. People have a tendency to judge the world by what they are experiencing. If you have a hot summer, it's global warming. If you're having a harsh winter and it never seems to stop snowing, we're headed into an ice age. Neither is true. Most people live in cities and guess what. In the US at least, the presence of air conditioning is constantly increasing. An air conditioner is a heat exchanger. It exchanges the heat inside your home or office to the outside. Not only that, but it creates heat in the process. The rule is 3 BTU for every 1 BTU heat transfer. But the weather station never takes even a part of that into account. Cities also tend to pave things and build structures that absorb and then radiate the heat. And reflect it. I read a paper not too long ago about a study that found out building cities straight streets in a criss-cross pattern, i.e. what seems most efficient, actually results in higher temperatures than a city with lots of curved and winding streets. So the temperatures rise in the cities because the populations grow, more buildings are built, more streets are paved, more air conditioners run and it stays hot later into the evenings. Move outside the cities and things are different. Cover the ground with vegetation and things change because plants aspirate and cool the air. We have lots of people in the world, but the fact is, we really only cover a small percentage of the earth's surface. And mostly along rivers and coastlines. Just food for thought.

Oh, one more thing when you look at the reports and the reporting period. You won't see reports very often that show temperature graphs back to the 30's. And that would be because temperatures were as high or higher in the 30's than they have been for the last 20 years. Nor will you see the graphs going back to 18th Century. And that would be because we were still in the "little ice age", which lasted until the middle of the 19th Century. It's inconvenient to blame "global warming" on human industrial activity and have a chart that shows the rise in temperatures began quite a bit before then. Climate changes slowly enough that you need to look at it in terms of centuries, not decades.