What do you think of climate change?

[MichaelP3]

simply the ability to comprehend what has been plainly written to be able to distinguish what is implied from what is actually claimed.

But just look at this very thread. People believe to easily what “is plainly written” without thinking further! My job would be very easy if I just took what is plainly written and full disclosure I would be without a job if I did that!

 

[PetraG]

yup, the detrimental knock on effects of elevated CO2 levels are not appreciated by people who don’t have a basic understanding of chemistry

Exactly. If you want to see the Great Barrier Reef, the time is now.
(Although considering the amount of CO2 most people will generate just in travelling to Australia, maybe just look at the pictures…)

Global Tourism Has a Bigger Share of Carbon Emissions Than Thought | Scientific American

Besides, if pretty much any chapter of St. Vincent de Paul were to get the money just one person had set aside to spend on a cruise… well, maybe thinking that way, more people would have one or two fewer “trips of a lifetime” in their lifetimes?

 

[Ender]

Sorry, but we’re getting more and worse fires out here in the West. We just are.
The frequency and severity of flooding is going up. You can blame it on whatever you want, but it is getting a little ridiculous for Congress to act as if this kind of thing is some kind of surprise. Where it will happen is not predictable; that it will happen is.

All I saw were assertions; where are the data points to support the claims? Without the data these claims are meaningless. They may be true, but with nothing to substantiate them there is no reason to accept them as valid. I can provide the data on hurricanes and tornadoes which show none of the frequency increases being claimed. For these claims to have any merit at all they have to be based on real data.

 

[graciew]

Sometimes it is just observable for those who have inhabited a place for a few generations.
And quite sincerely we are on board already with positive contribution. It is an issue we have to deal with and so we do. Not really need to convince many people because we go through these issues together.
It isn t really disputed …to be honest. It just happens…

 

[Ender]

Sometimes it is just observable for those who have inhabited a place for a few generations.
And quite sincerely we are on board already with positive contribution. It is an issue we have to deal with and so we do. Not really need to convince many people because we go through these issues together.
It isn’t really disputed …to be honest. It just happens…

“It just happens” isn’t all that scientifically rigorous, especially considering this:

According to the US Forest Service, roughly 85% of all wild fires are started by humans.

 

[graciew]

It may not be for you, I understand.
But there is no need for others who are already rowing out of homes and it isn t that anybody left the tap running precisely.
This I say perhaps to show how foreign these “ show me data” may sound to many of us who are already onboard.
It is more like ok keep discussing while we deal with it.

 

[Ender]

But there is no need for others who are already rowing out of homes and it isn t that anybody left the tap running precisely.

The recent heavy rain storm in DC, and how it was described is an example of the point I’m making. A number of politicians and others ascribed that storm to global warming, as if such storms haven’t occurred before, and this is something entirely new. They have and it isn’t. It is no different than Hurricane Katrina being blamed on Bush’s inaction on global warming. We have always had extreme weather; it’s just that now every such example is being treated as unique in history. There is little evidence to support such claims.

 

[Tolle_Lege]

Yes, everything is global warming and climate change to them. It’s their quasi-religion. The political party in this country that most vehemently supports so-called “man made climate change” also agrees with the notion that there are more than two genders. So we’re supposed to believe people who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman that the world is going to end in 12 years, that a rainstorm in DC is due to carbon emissions, etc.

 

[Ender]

More on the greening of the world (and it must be true because it’s NASA that says it):

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

[StephenBales]

I believe climate change is very, very real, but not manmade. It happens 4 times a year, differs in the Northern hemisphere from the Southern, and we have a distinct name for each of the four states

Before any of you castigate me, I’m only joking, and I’m not giving my actual opinion either way!

 

[PetraG]

All I saw were assertions; where are the data points to support the claims? Without the data these claims are meaningless. They may be true, but with nothing to substantiate them there is no reason to accept them as valid. I can provide the data on hurricanes and tornadoes which show none of the frequency increases being claimed. For these claims to have any merit at all they have to be based on real data.

The insurance industry believes in numbers

Global Warming Is Already Costing the Insurance Industry Historic Amounts

“Losses from secondary perils have been rising due to rapid development in areas exposed to severe weather and warmer temperatures…and we expect this trend to continue.”

There is no shortage in data concerning how many of the most severe hurricanes of the past century happened in the past 20 years, how much more severe the average wildfire has become, and so on.

https://www.alexanderschmidt.com/wildfires/

It is very bad in the West:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Why are wildfire losses increasing?​

“Changing weather patterns, increasing populations, flammable vegetation, and structures within reach of a wildfire’s flames and embers are increasing exposure to wildfire losses,” says Pat Durland of Stone Creek Fire LLC, Boise, Idaho. “With warmer summers, less rain, and milder winters, periods of seasonal fire conditions are increasing,” adds Durland. According to data compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists from Federal Wildland Fire Occurrence Data(1) , and other published sources, the number of large wildfires in the Western U.S. has increased from approximately 140 annually in the years between 1980–1989, to 160 annually from 1990–1999, to 240 annually from 2000–2012. That’s nearly a doubling of large fires annually in those three decades. The length of the wildfire season in the West has also increased significantly from the early 1970s to today—increasing from an average of 5 months to an average of 7 months each year.

Hotter average annual temperatures are considered a key factor—snow packs melt earlier, forests and lands are drier for longer periods contributing to the ignition and spreading of wildfires.(2) As reported by the New York Times , David A. Robinson, a climatologist at Rutgers University who tracks snow cover, said that the April 2016 snow pack in the Northern Hemisphere was the lowest since records began half a century ago.(3)

 

[PetraG]

I believe climate change is very, very real, but not manmade. It happens 4 times a year, differs in the Northern hemisphere from the Southern, and we have a distinct name for each of the four states

Before any of you castigate me, I’m only joking, and I’m not giving my actual opinion either way!

IOW, you don’t understand the difference between climate change and weather change.
If you live in an area devastated by a wildfire. a flood or a hurricane, and have seen far more “100 year events” than you ought to have seen in one lifetime, it is not remotely funny.

 

[PetraG]

More on the greening of the world (and it must be true because it’s NASA that says it):

NASA

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds​

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study.

Look up what NOAA says the CO2 levels are doing to the oceans. (Remember, if they say it is true, it is true.)
https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...oasts-education-resources/ocean-acidification
For more than 200 years, or since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use change (e.g. increased car emissions and deforestation). During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. The pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.

The recent heavy rain storm in DC, and how it was described is an example of the point I’m making. A number of politicians and others ascribed that storm to global warming, as if such storms haven’t occurred before, and this is something entirely new. They have and it isn’t. It is no different than Hurricane Katrina being blamed on Bush’s inaction on global warming. We have always had extreme weather; it’s just that now every such example is being treated as unique in history. There is little evidence to support such claims.

Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation | US EPA

• The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s, but has risen substantially since then. [Boldface mine: PetraG] Over the entire period from 1910 to 2015, the portion of the country experiencing extreme single-day precipitation events increased at a rate of about half a percentage point per decade (see Figure 1).
  (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[phaster]

phaster:

yup, the detrimental knock on effects of elevated CO2 levels are not appreciated by people who don’t have a basic understanding of chemistry

Exactly. If you want to see the Great Barrier Reef, the time is now.
(Although considering the amount of CO2 most people will generate just in travelling to Australia, maybe just look at the pictures…)

years ago decided to voluntarily not fly (and that includes my own private airplanes),… basically because I know flying them for “fun” to get a hundred dollar burger or to see some natural wonder like the great barrier reef is needlessly contributing CO2 to the atmosphere (NOTE the actual burger is only five to ten bucks,… but the fuel isn’t free,… so that why a hamburger is said to cost a hundred+ dollars)

actually flying on commercial airlines has another knock on effect, that few give second thought to,… and that is “aircraft contrails”

FYI one silver lining to 9/11 was scientific research on high altitude clouds which in general have a warming effect

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/index.html

basically having a period of grounded aircraft also contributed to a better understanding of “global dimming”

What is global dimming? | Environment | The Guardian

Airlines could boost their emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and still halve their impact on global warming. That is the paradoxical conclusion of a new study into the effects of commercial aviation on the environment.

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

Aircraft vapour trails are climate scourge | New Scientist

…given existing trends in air travel and aircraft design/operation, unless something dramatically changes,… we should expect the impact on climate to increase!

Climate impact of aircraft contrails could triple by mid-century

The warming effect of aeroplane contrails on Earth’s climate could increase threefold by 2050, according to new research done by Lisa Bock and Ulrike Burkhardt at the German Aerospace Centre in Oberpfaffenhofen. Their study highlights the importance of looking beyond carbon dioxide emissions when considering the environmental impacts of the aviation industry.

Climate impact of aircraft contrails could treble by mid-century – Physics World

…while other sectors are being radically overhauled, there’s little sign of change from aviation — now the fastest-growing source of CO2.

…Air tickets are crazy light on the wallet — especially when you think of the heavy price the environment pays. In fact, because air fuel isn’t taxed at all, flying is often the cheapest option for journeys that could just as well be taken with fewer emissions.

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

Could eco-friendly flying be on the horizon? | Environment| All topics from climate change to conservation | DW | 22.11.2018

 

[phaster]

phaster:

basically given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”

Yea you convinced me. Google can respond with very strange things and many believe them if you are not educated in the field as is proven on this very thread.

I just like individuals who think a bit further. And the Chemistry here is actually pretty basic.

in this thread I’ve learned once again basic human nature should be taken into account (even w/ in a hard science like physics or chemistry) because there are so many specialized areas of expertise

take for instance ivar giaever who won a nobel in 1973 for solid state physics,… and was offered up as proof that climate change does not exist

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

I note that conventional wisdom fall heavily on one side of this argument and that any and all opposing, or even critical viewpoints tend to be ignored or suppressed. [Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax]

one thing missing (in the video suggested by po18guy) of a nobel guy who “supposedly thinks,…” is any scientific proof disproving the various basic physics or basic chemistry mechanisms which cause the various knock on effects that pose risks to humanity

basically the video offered as proof,… is nothing more that rants of an old guy

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

actually giaever is not as entertaining as some other old guys I’ve seen offering an opinion (but no real science) on the topic of CC

now that I think about it,… giaever kinda reminds me of a muppet that rants about the temperature,… but has not taken the time or effort to understand the basic science or risks due to “climate change”

to be fair,… al gore also was awarded a nobel

Al Gore – Facts - NobelPrize.org

and gore also reminds me of a muppet who rant’s that the world is up a proverbial creek w/ out a paddle,… but IMHO he seems to have no basic talent WRT understanding of the science that causes “climate change”

 

[PetraG]

It concerns me greatly when people refer to it as a “scam” to subscribe to the theory that measurable global warming and observable global climate change is due to the sources of CO2 such as emissions of internal combustion engines.

Could the science be wrong? Well, history is full of scientific theories that didn’t hold up. I can’t think of one with quite this much evidence, but it could happen. It is not as if we understand how weather works the way we understand engines. Climate is complicated and the variables that could influence it are many. The CO2 levels could hardly be uninvolved in the change in pH in the oceans, that’s a direct thing that we do understand clearly, but it is possible that we have identified a very likely but yet the wrong suspect (or not the most guilty party) when it comes to temperature rise.

What is the evidence that interpreting the data this way is a “scam,” though? A scam? That implies a total and deliberate fraud. It implies faking of data, faking of models, or some kind of serious lying. By whom? To achieve what end? I don’t see the evidence for that, and making a charge of fraud is a very serious charge, indeed. Where is the evidence that the scientists are making their interpretations in bad faith? That’s what we’d have to have for it to be a “scam.”

and gore also reminds me of a muppet who rant’s that the world is up a proverbial creek w/ out a paddle,… but IMHO he seems to have no basic talent WRT understanding of the science that causes “climate change”

Al Gore would have a lot more credibility if he took trains instead of jets. It isn’t as if he is a public servant who cannot limit his engagements in order to limit his personal consumption.

The President of the United States, meanwhile, would do well to limit his use of Air Force One to actual need, rather than dragging the Secret Service and military pilots around so he can take all those vacations he said he would never take if he were ever elected President. He criticized past presidents for taking too much personal time when they were doing far less than he does himself now. Again: even if the emissions for Air Force One never did a bit of damage, his travel habit is spectacularly wasteful.

 

[Theo520]

“Losses from secondary perils have been rising due to rapid development in areas exposed to severe weather and warmer temperatures…and we expect this trend to continue.”

So claims aren’t up because of increased frequency or severity,
they are up because of rapid development in the areas frequently exposed to severe weather.

If you got more people living in flood plains, you get more compensation requests from the same number and severity of events.

 

[PetraG]

So claims aren’t up because of increased frequency or severity,
they are up because of rapid development in the areas frequently exposed to severe weather.

If you got more people living in flood plains, you get more compensation requests from the same number and severity of events.

You didn’t read the entire post, I think.

The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s, but has risen substantially since then . [Boldface mine: PetraG] Over the entire period from 1910 to 2015, the portion of the country experiencing extreme single-day precipitation events increased at a rate of about half a percentage point per decade (see Figure 1).

Yes, measures indicate that the frequence and severity of severe events has increased.

 

[Theo520]

Yes, measures indicate that the frequence and severity of severe events has increased.

So we saw no change until 1980’s?
Think it through, if CO2 was the cause, it would have increased before 1980.

But what did change at that time?
We got satellite measurement which allows us to accurately monitor all land across the contiguous USA, regardless of whether it has measurement rain gauges in the vicinity.

The current measured rate of increase is about half a percentage point per decade. So it is technically increasing, but not by leaps and bounds.

Why did you ignore what the insurance industry specifically stated as the cause?

 

[PetraG]

I read the entire article. The insurance industry says the events are more frequent.
“Large losses from secondary perils are occurring more regularly”, says Edouard Schmid, Swiss Re’s Group Chief Underwriting Officer in a press statement. “This is a trend the insurance industry must act on so that we can continue to underwrite catastrophe business sustainably.”

So we saw no change until 1980’s?
Think it through, if CO2 was the cause, it would have increased before 1980.

But what did change at that time?
We got satellite measurement which allows us to accurately monitor all land across the contiguous USA, regardless of whether it has measurement rain gauges in the vicinity.

The current measured rate of increase is about half a percentage point per decade. So it is technically increasing, but not by leaps and bounds.

I hate to tell you this, but the increase since 1980 is a HUGE leap.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Did you read this:

Evidence - NASA Science

No, it is not “oh, gee, Theo, you’re right, this is just satellite bias!”
No, it is not satellite bias. “CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.” (Mona Loa is not a satellite.)

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

Note that graphic only goes through 2010. The global average for 2017 was 405 ppm.