Man Made Climate Change

[LWC55]

You can have questions without being hostile to the concept. I think one of the things that fuels the skeptics is all the sensational positions, projections, and predictions made by some alarmists (many of who are/were scientists) that simply have not come to pass. I remember things that were said of the deep water horizon spill in the gulf that were terrifying, predicted impacts that were just wildly inaccurate.

To me it would be silly to think that the number of people on this planet, and the amount of emissions we create has no effect on climate, or the things that influence climate. What I don't have a grasp of is how the system is equipped to deal with what we through at it. Nor have I seen a viable alternative to our current model. It seems apparent to me that we need to continue to work towards a more renewable system, but there isn't a system just waiting out there under a tarp for us to just uncover it, get in, fire it up and take off.

It's not a simple issue, and it's not going to have a simple solution.

Lot of truth in this. I think we are all for cleaner air and water. I think most skeptics can see that the science behind climate change is not very exact. Doesn't mean we should not all be for cleaner air and water. But the extreme views on both sides are what get the publicity.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Off topic kinda. What ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer? When I was coming up that was gonna wipe us out.

 

[RockinU]

It's unfortunate that this whole issue has been made so political. The partisanship of the differing views seems to have made rational constructive discussions impossible. Even when the discussion on threads like this stay mostly amicable, you can kind of feel the underlying hostility. It seems to just entrench opposites further into their position (even to extremes), and further from common ground. It's going to make solutions harder and harder.

 

[ChrisS]

As was demonstrated in a graphic earlier in this thread, we are leading in CO2 reductions, much better than some of the countries who are still signatories to the accords

Eh, that graphic is kind of misleading. It's only for emissions based on transportation and the US is pretty consistently around 5,000 million tons per year give or take oh 50,000 tons. The decrease really is just year over year noise.

 

[RockinU]

Off topic kinda. What ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer? When I was coming up that was gonna wipe us out.

It healed with the discontinuation of CFC's, but I feel like I've seen recently that the rogue use of CFC's is rearing it's head again, and possibly causing some problems again...but I may not have that right.

 

[WyoDoug]

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

I am not convinced that climate change is man made or if any of it can even be reversed. Nearly all science done so far has been done to support a preconceived opinion or the scientists if you can call them that, had a vested interest in the outcome.

 

[Cheese Curd]

The greenhouse effect is not debatable. Without greenhouse gasses the earth's temperature would be much colder than it actually is. Greenhouse gasses trap heat that would otherwise be lost from earth. Temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation. As we pump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it most certainly does impact the earth's climate

View attachment 110045

I just cannot believe people still want to debate this point, other than they just want to bury their head in the sand. The debate lies on what actions we are going to take

According to the chart, and the cycles that have been repeated over and over within a very predictable band, it appears to me that temperature and CO2 will again decrease over the next 50,000-100,000 years. Looks like business as usual to me and nothing to worry about.

 

[ChrisS]

Off topic kinda. What ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer? When I was coming up that was gonna wipe us out.

The world got together and banned the production and use of most CFCs.

Scientists detected the problem and identified the cause of the problem. Their evidence convinced governments around the world to take action to help stop the problem. The global elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals from the atmosphere will take decades, but we have made progress on filling in the hole. It was the first time in history that we tackled a global-scale environmental issue with worldwide cooperation.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Off topic kinda. What ever happened to the hole in the Ozone layer? When I was coming up that was gonna wipe us out.

I've heard the need to wear sunscreen in NZ is still no joke.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/videos/the-ozone-hole

 

[RockinU]

Eh, that graphic is kind of misleading. It's only for emissions based on transportation and the US is pretty consistently around 5,000 million tons per year give or take oh 50,000 tons. The decrease really is just year over year noise.

Even taking that into consideration, it still leaves us as having done better than most, does it not?

 

[ChrisS]

Nearly all science done so far has been done to support a preconceived opinion or the scientists if you can call them that, had a vested interest in the outcome.

Then it should be easy to disprove. Have it at, you'd make a ton of money.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

From the Abstract " We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

So, a majority of the papers analyzed took no position. 66.4%

Among those taking a position 97.1% agreed that humans are causing global warming. 4,013 of the 11,944 papers analyzed.

This is an example of a dangerous number.

97% of scientists holding a position in a paper on human caused climate change from 1991-2011.

This does not mean 97% of all scientists.

It is just the review of climate scientists published work of peer reviewed journals that took a position on the subject.

So, it is technically true. However, it is not a representative sample; which means it is bad data.

The polarizing topic that climate change is allows for this number to fester and be repeated without challenge, because if you challenge it then your argument is thrown out due to you being a climate denier.

It would be naive to think that humans do not have an impact on the environment, but attempting to prove the actual impact that humans have on the environment would be cumbersome.

There is also probably a lot of gray area with the studies.

Something like NOx is produced almost exclusively by humans (natural cause is lightning) and its overall net effect may be small on a atmospheric scale. However, humans are producing it and contributing to the change in the climate. Something like this could be counted as a scientific consensous, even though it doesn't have much to do with the narrative of the overall effects of the issue.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I am not convinced that climate change is man made or if any of it can even be reversed. Nearly all science done so far has been done to support a preconceived opinion or the scientists if you can call them that, had a vested interest in the outcome.

I mean my pay check directly comes from a company that will be hurt by climate legislation and I'm on board... but I mean I'm clearly one of Land Tawney's green decoy plants in the energy industry, say what you will that man is a master of the long game.

 

[MTGomer]

The debate lies on what actions we are going to take

 

[ChrisS]

Even taking that into consideration, it still leaves us as having done better than most, does it not?

Depends on what your metric for "better" is. The US is responsible for a huge portion of the total contribution to atmospheric CO2 in the last century. If you look at it as a debt, say we've taken out $2,000m from a credit account over the last 50 years, but in the last few years we've only been taking out $5m. Now, recently other countries have been able to access that same account and have been taking out $9m a year and have totaled about $200m. Who is responsible for the $3,000m debt?

 

[WyoDoug]

Then it should be easy to disprove. Have it at, you'd make a ton of money.

Read the study partner. This one was a bipartisan one that liberals are racing to disprove

 

[Northwoods Labs]

According to the chart, and the cycles that have been repeated over and over within a very predictable band, it appears to me that temperature and CO2 will again decrease over the next 50,000-100,000 years. Looks like business as usual to me and nothing to worry about.

By adding more CO2 we are disrupting the cycle, not sure where the magical decrease in CO2 will come from (unless we take steps to curb emissions)

 

[Nameless Range]

A useful way for thinking about it that I have used as a discussion piece with others, is to reference the volume of our atmosphere.

We know how large the earth is. We also know roughly the height from earth’s surface that our atmosphere occupies, and the densities of air at different altitudes within that space. We have rough numbers representing the volumes and proportions of gases within that space. It’s not so big and mysterious we can’t quantify it.

We can also quantify, roughly, the artificial alterations we are making to the ratios and volumes of gases within that space through our human activities on earth. From that data we can talk about how the behavior of our atmosphere would change as an insulator, absorber, whatever- compared to what the ratios were previously.

Not trying to make a grand statement about it all, and of course there are many moving parts as it pertains to climate( Sun cycles, ellipse of our orbit, tilt of our axis, etc. ) Rather, just saying this stuff is measurable and is not raw guesswork.

 

[rwc101]

This is an example of a dangerous number.

Which is why I wouldn't (and didn't) rely on one study. You ignored the four other studies that took different approaches yet all came to the same conclusion that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe humans have a role in climate change.

 

[RockinU]

Depends on what your metric for "better" is. The US is responsible for a huge portion of the total contribution to atmospheric CO2 in the last century. If you look at it as a debt, say we've taken out $2,000m from a credit account over the last 50 years, but in the last few years we've only been taking out $5m. Now, recently other countries have been able to access that same account and have been taking out $9m a year and have totaled about $200m. Who is responsible for the $3,000m debt?

Which is very useful in assigning blame, which seems to be an important aspect in this for many, and maybe useful as a learning tool for nations still developing (if they'd use it), but has little use in recognizing solutions. A pretty commonly agreed upon first step to solving many issues is to "put down the shovel", and I think it's significant to recognize if we're doing that or not.