What do you think of climate change?

[Greenfields]

I have zero interest in climate change. There’s nothing more I could do anyway. My wife and I both walk to work year round (I bike in summer) and the car is seldom used outside of shopping. We keep the furnace turned low in winter and don’t even have an air conditioner for summer. Every can, bottle, and paper is recycled. We’re selective with our purchases and, aside from a small electric lawn mower, we own no powered garden toys. If climate change is caused by human activity, I’m not to blame and don’t care anyway.

It was sad and interesting to hear reports here recently of children feeling the brunt of the whole thing…feelings of hopelessness and depression about the worlds future .These children needing psychological help as they feel the burden of guilt for adding to ‘climate change’ .As if they don’t have enough stresses already in life.
So there is another money making spin coming out of ‘climate change’, trying to repair the agendas push on children

 

[Theo520]

Also, stating that the present warming is just part of this natural cycle ignores the fact that the warming in the past 50-100 years has been at a higher rate than any warming in the “pattern” ice ages you refer to.

NO, you have no supporting evidence.

The ice core measurements are a reconstruction of ground level CO2 in a single location. This single estimate is then blown out to reflect a global measurement. The error margin is HUGE.

The trapped sample degrades and blends somewhat between the layers over the millennia. By all means it’s useful, but it’s hardly precise in measuring short term changes even for that specific location, let alone the whole world.

Other research confirms co2 levels vary far more than captured in ice core samples

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_CO_2_gas_analysis_by_chemical_methods

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is that a peer-reviewed publication? The abstract sounds more like a sales pitch than an academic peer-reviewed research paper. It is also suspicious that NASA has not corrected their website to reflect this “better understanding”. Also the full text is only available to members - not that I would be able to critique it anyway. I rely on experts to do that, and I see no evidence that independent experts have reviewed this finding.

 

[JanetF]

I think I’ve seen the climate of my own little corner of the world change in my lifetime.
I think it might be natural cycles and causes.
I also think it might be man made.

And…I am extremely uneasy at the tactics of the scientist who promote the anthropogenic model, that they just dismiss anyone who isn’t in lock-step with their opinion as “stupid” and “crazy”

Wish I could like this 100 times!!! Would add that the climate of the earth has been changing since the earth was created, so…

This is not to say that we shouldn’t be doing things to be more careful about our impact on various ecosystems, etc.

 

[Theo520]

Is that a peer-reviewed publication?

Kinda cute how you go straight for an ad hominem, so predictable.

Yes, it’s peer reviewed.
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/eae

 

[phaster]

phaster:

sadly I seem to have confirmed the findings in a published paper (based on data gathered here in san diego) that there essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that cause climate change in the public at large

How much understanding is there in the public at large about the mechanisms undergirding

• Magnetism?
• Gravity?
• Themodynamics?

Why should we expect the general public to have much of an understanding of extremely complex scientific processes that aren’t particularly well-understood by the scientific community?

actually the mechanisms that cause climate change is quite well understood using physics, math and chemistry,… and IMHO should be taught ASAP

the inconvenient fact of the matter is few people want to accept the inconvenient truth that our modern life style is the root cause of climate change,… and it seems some take active measures to hide the truth

www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt

we in the USA have created a lifestyle centered around instant gratification and the worshiping of money and material goods,… and this consumer lifestyle is envied and is being emulated by people around the world,… as I see things, people are being tempted by a false god

stop for a moment and look around where you live,… shops and fast food everywhere,… the american dream of having an SUV for a quick trip to a fast food drive though, has various environmental and personal health costs that few stop and really think about

as I see things worshiping the latest fashions or material goods at the fancy mall or on a personal video device has become the alter of the consumption god


in my own case I’ve learned to resist being tempted by the god of consumption by using science and math to really think about the big picture and consider the various costs of selling my soul to the god of consumption

Consumers have huge environmental impact

…“We all like to put the blame on someone else, the government, or businesses,” Ivanova says. “But between 60-80 per cent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption. If we change our consumption habits, this would have a drastic effect on our environmental footprint as well.”

…But even more surprising is that four-fifths of the impacts that can be attributed to consumers are not direct impacts, like the fuel we burn when we drive our cars, but are what are called secondary impacts, or the environmental effects from actually producing the goods and products that we buy.

Consumers have huge environmental impact: We like to blame the government or industries for the Earth's problems, but what we buy makes a big difference -- ScienceDaily

 

[phaster]

Rev. 8. Wormwood.
The Earth wasn’t made to last forever. Climate change or no, it’s all God’s providence.

but mankind isn’t helping the situtation out by ignoring the various “scientific” warning signs

www.TinyURL.com/HowBigIsTheEarth

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Is that a peer-reviewed publication?

Kinda cute how you go straight for an ad hominem, so predictable.

Yes, it’s peer reviewed.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Here’s the peer-review policy exactly as stated on the site:

Energy & Environment adheres to a rigorous double-blind reviewing policy in which the identity of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties.

As part of the submission process you will be asked to provide the names of 2 peers who could be called upon to review your manuscript. Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Please be aware of any conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the below:

• The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of your submission,
• The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors,
• Reviewer nominees from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted.

This is a flawed peer-review policy and I do not trust it. The biggest flaw is that the author recommends the reviewers. I searched though half a dozen peer-review policies, and none of them operated like that. One of them even went so far as to state:

Authors may suggest both decision editors and peer reviewers, but there is no obligation on the part of the journal to accept these suggestions…

And there is this:

Energy & Environment ( E&E ) is an academic journal “covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use”. Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing [climate change denial papers. Yiu Fai Tsang became its editor-in-chief in May 2017.

So my assessment of their peer-review policy is not so crazy.

If the CO2 record that everyone else is using is so wrong, why have they not recognized it yet? I need to see some significant number of scientists agreeing with this extraordinary claim before I will accept is as truth.

 

[edwest211]

Interesting. Why is big oil not to blame? Who makes the goods and products the average person buys? The media message is to buy stuff and even more stuff. I remember hearing “I maxed out my credit card.” in the 1990s. Basic food and clothing and basic transportation. Those things are needed. As far as price, who controls that? Wall Street is constantly after companies to make more money so they can siphon off profits, but miss their expectations by 10 or 14 cents and don’t tell them what they want to hear about future sales, the stock begins to spiral downward. That information is invisible to people earning less than 30K a year. The owners of smoke-belching factories seem totally unconcerned about any climate issues.

 

[DIERM]

I skimmed your slides and think you are missing the big enchilada.

uh, yeah, like the political aspect, I suppose.

 

[Theo520]

uh, yeah, like the political aspect, I suppose.

DON’T Prooftext me.

If you are going to quote me, respond to what I actually said in the post (the parts you excluded)

 

[Ender]

actually the mechanisms that cause climate change is quite well understood using physics, math and chemistry,… and IMHO should be taught ASAP

This is absolutely false. The climate is an extraordinarily complex system about which our understanding is woefully short. We understand how greenhouse warming works, but that’s a pretty small component of the overall system. I’ll quote Judith Curry again: “Experts disagree on most aspects of climate change” which seems right given that the climate is a “nonlinear dynamical system.”

We don’t know what the climate sensitivity is; we don’t even know if the climate is sensitive or insensitive to changes (forcings and feedbacks). A basic assumption underlying virtually all the climate models is that the Earth is in a natural state of energy balance, and that no changes occur that are not caused by man. The models are then tuned to achieve that result, meaning that any naturally occurring change is automatically attributed to man’s influence.

Given that the warming we have experienced only represents about a 1% change in the Earth’s energy balance, the claim that we truly understand what caused this change is farcical.

 

[edwest211]

Various things have been proposed, including a space umbrella involving deploying a number of kilometer-wide screens to diminish the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface. But the problem is: if a relatively large change in the amount of sunlight hitting the northern or southern hemisphere is made, it may – may – cause harm because the global system is not well understood. On the other hand, the claim is made that CO2 in the air has reached a certain level and it needs to be reduced. They can do that, but it needs to be done in a way that does not cause other problems.

 

[phaster]

Interesting. Why is big oil not to blame? Who makes the goods and products the average person buys? The media message is to buy stuff and even more stuff. I remember hearing “I maxed out my credit card.” in the 1990s. Basic food and clothing and basic transportation. Those things are needed. As far as price, who controls that? Wall Street is constantly after companies to make more money so they can siphon off profits, but miss their expectations by 10 or 14 cents and don’t tell them what they want to hear about future sales, the stock begins to spiral downward. That information is invisible to people earning less than 30K a year. The owners of smoke-belching factories seem totally unconcerned about any climate issues.

as I mentioned, as I see things,… people are being tempted by a false god

in other words, we are all guilty of contributing to the problem of CO2 production,… since users of this forum should be familiar w/ the bible, thought I’d add a quote that seems apropo

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone”

WRT owners of smoke-belching factories, the problem is akin to what Jesus said to the rich ruler,…

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me” (Matthew 19:21). The young man decided that Jesus was asking too much. “He went away sad, because he had great wealth,” Rather than obey Jesus’ instructions, he turned his back on the Lord and walked away.

 

[on_the_hill]

I’m against it. I’d prefer my climate not change. I do not like the weather to be any warmer than it is now. I don’t care what we have to do to prevent it. I don’t want it to happen. If it were up to me, the coal industry would’ve been shuttered a decade ago. If Hillary could’ve made good on her promise to destroy the coal industry we’d all be better off. But maybe that’s another thread. As a health conscious asthmatic, I think all air pollutants are bad.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

actually the mechanisms that cause climate change is quite well understood using physics, math and chemistry,… and IMHO should be taught ASAP

This is absolutely false. The climate is an extraordinarily complex system about which our understanding is woefully short. We understand how greenhouse warming works, but that’s a pretty small component of the overall system. I’ll quote Judith Curry again: “Experts disagree on most aspects of climate change” which seems right given that the climate is a "nonlinear dynamical system."

We don’t know what the climate sensitivity is; we don’t even know if the climate is sensitive or insensitive to changes (forcings and feedbacks). A basic assumption underlying virtually all the climate models is that the Earth is in a natural state of energy balance, and that no changes occur that are not caused by man. The models are then tuned to achieve that result, meaning that any naturally occurring change is automatically attributed to man’s influence.

Given that the warming we have experienced only represents about a 1% change in the Earth’s energy balance, the claim that we truly understand what caused this change is farcical.

complex math models to forecast what will happen to the global climate in the future

The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways

incorporate information about the various basic mechanisms that cause climate change,… like eccentricity of the earth w/ in the milankovitch cycle, knowledge of CO2 being a IR reflector due to dipole vibration, knowing that the “Carbon 12” Isotope found in CO2 is a finger print of the chemical reaction of burning fossil fuels and the keeling curve

so you’re suggesting,… that we don’t teach students in school (now) AND who are going to have to figure out how to clean this mess,… that it isn’t important to be informed about the various basic mechanisms that effect the climate?!

seems instead of leaving this world a better place than we found it,… by not teaching the various basic mechanisms that cause the climate to change,… we’re setting up students to be essentially deaf, dumb and blind to a “nonlinear dynamical system” that is more easily going to kill them off

ignoring teaching the science isn’t WWJD IMHO

What would Jesus do (about climate change)?

…the idea of creation care, which asserts that God tasked humans as the earth’s stewards, not its owners, and holds us accountable for the job we do.

What would Jesus do (about climate change)? - The Boston Globe

 

[edwest211]

That’s a bit hysterical. Climate change is being tackled now by the very wealthy. They believe they have more to lose than average people. Stop the hysterics. Brilliant men have found solutions.

 

[Marshmallow2]

I know it is our fault and it is us who are destroying this lovely planet, but sometimes I can’t help but feel that it is God with a new version of Noah’s ark and ridding His Earth of our disgusting actions and thoughts.

 

[Ender]

so you’re suggesting,… that we don’t teach students in school (now) AND who are going to have to figure out how to clean this mess,… that it isn’t important to be informed about the various basic mechanisms that effect the climate?!

There is no reasonable way to assume this from what I said.

seems instead of leaving this world a better place than we found it,… by not teaching the various basic mechanisms that cause the climate to change,… we’re setting up students to be essentially deaf, dumb and blind to a “nonlinear dynamical system” that is more easily going to kill them off.

Saying that the mechanisms that determine climate are extraordinarily complex and not well understood says nothing at all about whether they should be explored. How do you come up with this?

ignoring teaching the science isn’t WWJD IMHO

Please, read my comments more carefully. Nothing you said is in any way relevant to what I said.

 

[phaster]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Did a 1977 ‘Time’ Story Offer Tips on ‘How to Survive the Coming Ice Age’?

While a number of media outlets reported on some briefly-lived scientific fears over global cooling in the 1970s, viral images purporting to show a cover story on the topic are doctored.

FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?

How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed

BOSTON – Temperatures have plunged to record lows on the East Coast, and once again Peter Gwynne is being heralded as a journalist ahead of his time. By some.

Gwynne was the science editor of Newsweek 39 years ago when he pulled together some interviews from scientists and wrote a nine-paragraph story about how the planet was getting cooler.

Ever since, Gwynne’s “global cooling” story – and a similar Time Magazine piece – have been brandished gleefully by those who say it shows global warming is not happening, or at least that scientists – and often journalists – don’t know what they are talking about.

…The story observed – accurately – that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude.

Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the “Little Ice Age” from the 16th to 19th centuries.

“When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster,” Gwynne recalled. “It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking.”

…Even today, “there is some degree of uncertainty about natural variability,” acknowledged Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. “If it weren’t for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles.”

But earth’s glacial rhythms are “being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels,” McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling “are convenient for people to trot out and wave around,” he said, but they miss the point:

“What’s clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment.”

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be - Scientific American