What do you think of climate change?

[on_the_hill]

Maybe we’ll get an award for improvement. We had been failing but are working hard to bring that grade up.

And, for health reasons, I would like to see the coal industry collapse.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

God gave us this world to manage.
We can either take care of it and make it better, or we can destroy it.
I do believe that climate change is real.
God has given us the knowledge to know how to combat climate change. It is up to us to use that knowledge to stop to trend toward climate change.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

yup, better than most ,… given a physics back ground, etc.

Better than someone who has an atmospheric background?

a meteorologist by definition is an expert in or student of meteorology; a weather forecaster

the only formal training I have in weather is stuff, is classes and lessons to be a safe pilot,… learned long ago that if you fly an airplane or glider into the wrong place of the atmospheric at the wrong time, results in a pretty bumpy ride, or worst!

bottom line, there are lots of knowledge puzzle pieces one needs to have, in order to appreciate the risk posed by “climate change,…”

Atmospheric researchers study the workings of the atmosphere to better understand how it works, and how it’s interconnected with our planet’s waters. This connection often leads atmospheric researchers to work in tandem with oceanographers, hydrologists, environmental scientists, physicists, and mathematicians to collect and interpret data and study atmospheric phenomena.

environmentalscience[dot]org/career/meteorologist

as for my skill set, there is something to be said for dumb luck (i.e. random chance) because I was lucky enough to be at the the right place at the right time as a student, to have one on one discussions prominent figures like revelle and keeling (who did pioneering CO2 research)

 

[MPat]

The worst case scenario if “man made climate change is all a lie” is that pollution and waste are reduced “for nothing”. But it won’t be for nothing. Millions of people with underlying respitory conditions will have a longer / better quality of life due to reduced pollution. Not to mention probably saving some of the Amazon rainforest. I’m ok with multinationals’ profit margins taking a small hit to achieve a cleaner planet.

You know, hearing that activists want to use the theory they advance as a pretext to do what they want to do anyway is not very reassuring…

 

[phaster]

phaster:

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

First, ’climate change’ is a term used to represent whatever environment issue someone is advocating, it’s not about science (but it makes a nice club)

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

There really isn’t any dispute among opposing ‘experts’ that CO2 is a GHG and will warm the earth about 1C with doubling, due the physics of radiative forcing.

The whole climate change dispute is about the feedbacks that are second order effects. The climate models have thousand of ‘feedbacks’ written into their code and they are projected to cause anywhere from 0.5 to 3.5C in additional warming because of the increased CO2.

If the discussion and research was focused on validating the feedbacks, we could come to a true consensus.

the PDF outline I created was done to point out the science

note on the second page of the PDF I posted, I specifically highlighted the study about “Climate illiteracy” which basically asked why does CO2 cause a green house effect,… the answer FYI is because CO2 reflects infrared waves due to dipole vibration

did my own informal poll, at the San Diego StartUpWeek event where there are lots of tech savvy people and also at a “350” climate action discussion

sadly in my informal poll there was only one person at StartUpWeek who was able to identify CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of its IR properties

WRT my using the phrase “climate change”

admittedly any phrasing used is bound to get zealots dander up (on either side of the debate,… but its unavoidable)

as I mentioned the PDF outline I have was created, is suppose to point out the big over all science picture

as I see things there is a difference between short term “weather” and long term “climate” that students, teachers, politicians, etc., need to understand,… so that is why I’ve tried to outline eight big questions everyone should think about and discuss openly

5th question,… why does the “climate change” or in other words why do ice ages occur?

as you mentioned, the various higher order feedback are indeed complex,… but given the CO2 structure which reflects infrared waves due to dipole vibration, AND w/ CO2 levels at 415+ ppm and increasing,… I personally think its important for the public at large to be aware of “science” along w/ the “precautionary principle”

 

[Theo520]

I understand CO2 radiative forcing, but was hoping to have you recognize it’s not the major contributor in projected warming. For most estimates, over 2/3 of warming is being driven by the feedbacks.

If you want to educate someone on Climate Change, they need to understand the difference between direct warming from CO2 IR and the feedbacks.

 

[Anrakyr]

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.

I tend to be mighty dubious of any video claiming to ‘smash’ any idea. Frankly, I find it shows massive cognitive bias. Often times when non-scientific professionals seek to debunk a point they will unseat the simplistic layman’s versions which are created for our conveniences instead of addressing the math or science that went into the hard proof.

As such we have people who would rather fall into camps arguing points that don’t truly exist then address the concerns that the scientific community brings to our attention.

Allow me to provide a social if not scientific example of this phenomenon that played out last holiday. I’d like to stress that I don’t care about the subject itself nor do I want to debate it. I merely bring it to your attention to highlight human behavior surrounding beliefs and how they defend them and attack those they disagree with.

Last holiday someone asked the question: “Should we change the lyrics to ‘Baby its Cold Outside,’ to better highlight the morals and attitude we as a society hold considering the change of language since it was written.”

Instead of arguing the point people immediately fell into two camps, those who felt that (for lack a better term) a tradition was being changed to suit political correctness. Then other that felt stubborn unchanging traditionalist don’t care about the damages language that has changed over the years could affect the youth.

Neither side cared to actually look at the topic. They just felt attacked and went on the defensive rather than argue the point. Any dialog that could have been had constructively was lost because people tie their identity to their opinions rather than seeing opinions as collectibles you hold till you find a better one in the search for the best set.

The fact that no one in this topic is arguing the facts just opinions and while I’m aware that what the thread asks it’s just going to lead to a bitter battle.

 

[phaster]

I understand CO2 radiative forcing, but was hoping to have you recognize it’s not the major contributor in projected warming. For most estimates, over 2/3 of warming is being driven by the feedbacks.

If you want to educate someone on Climate Change, they need to understand the difference between direct warming from CO2 IR and the feedbacks.

personally have seen over the years that not many have thought of the various knock on effects in other realms,… case in point at the current time we have effects of “global dimming” which is an atmospheric feedback that actually is masking the full effects of the greenhouse IR effect of CO2

then for example w/ CO2 concentrations at currently 415+ ppm we should consider that between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years,… which then results w/ ocean acidification (i.e. a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time,…)

this in turn results in wreaking havoc on marine organisms that build their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate AND since these creatures provide essential food and habitat for other ocean dwellers, the effects could ripple disastrously throughout the ocean,… trends indicate projected ocean acidification also most likely will take a heavy toll on tropical reef-building corals

 

[Dan_Defender]

In both cases you consume less energy which is a plus. And here in Canada most electricity generation comes from renewable energy.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

that there essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that cause climate change in the public at large

To be fair, I started out as an environmental science major until changing majors. Even I still only have a basic knowledge of how it works. Then again, I was focused more on ecology, where we mostly deferred to the experts when climate change came up.

To quote [Skeptical Science]

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

As the graph further down in that article shows, those with a better understanding of climate science have a much higher consensus on global warming being real than those with a low level of understanding.

the reason, decided to hang out in this webspace on a Sunday is to try and get a feel for the general understanding of how people of faith (and most likely w/ out a science education) frame the issue of “climate change”

find it interesting even though “climate change” in often in the news sadly there is very little actual scientific understanding of the issue

at the 2018 faith and science conference, noticed there was great hesitation by some asking the panel questions, believing the science of evolution

as I see things, that is water under the bridge so to speak, in than,… we’re here

w/ the issue of “climate change” it’s a whole other ball game and that is because our collective actions will directly affect what happens to humanity

kinda wanted to bring into the “climate change” debate spiritual aspects, so that is why I found a video clip describing “the man who lived by the river” (I have a youtube link on the bottom of the second to last page of the PDF I put together)

…You remind me of the man that lived by the river.

He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town, and all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, “I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.”

The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted, “Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.” But the man shouted back, “I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.”

A helicopter was hovering overhead and a guy with a megaphone shouted, “Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I’ll take you to safety.” But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety.

Well, the man drowned.

And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. “Lord,” he said, “I’m a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?” God said, “I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?”

anyway IMHO this is a climate change parable that perfectly illustrates what seems to be the story of scientists trying to get people of faith, to understand the risks

thoughts?

 

[Theo520]

It’s a very real concern, but Havoc has yet to be shown.
The harm is predicted for the future.

And havoc projections sometimes change with more research
Pteropods counter mechanical damage and dissolution through extensive shell repair

 

[edwest211]

Scientists know how much CO2 is in the air. The technology exists to extract it. To bring it down to a certain PPM range. The problem? The world’s two biggest CO2 polluters are China and the United States. In China, right now, people can buy three different masks to filter the air they breathe. The third, and most expensive version, will trap fine particulate matter so it doesn’t end up in the lungs. The owners of smoke-belching industries who are worth billions of dollars don’t want to die. They will implement everything when the money situation is right. Right now, in the United States, the IRS is giving a tax credit to companies that will solve the problem. It will go down a bit next year and end at 10% in 2021. It’s all in place. The transition is happening now.

 

[Anrakyr]

The world’s two biggest CO2 polluters are China and the United States.

It’s really convenient to imply/infer what have you that we should just give up because we can’t convince corrupt superpowers to stop corrupting.

 

[ZMystiCat]

at the 2018 faith and science conference , noticed there was great hesitation by some asking the panel questions, believing the science of evolution

I think the problem with things like evolution and climate change is that they are seen as “controversial” in a lot of religious spaces, and by “controversial”, I mean that a lot of people who have at best an amateur’s understanding of the science like debating it as if they were experts (again, lot’s of pride here). At the same time, there’s just not a lot of people who really understand it in Christianity, so any panelist who wants to defend it probably doesn’t want to go near an issue that they can’t discuss at a level any higher than those who would challenge them (i.e. an amateurish level where they can’t adequately present science and call out pseudoscience). This probably leads to the issue not getting a lot of attention.

Along with that, it doesn’t help that many who oppose the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a threat aren’t exactly…willing…to engage in discussion. They often claim you’re just speculating, which takes a lot of knowledge to prove wrong (far more than the average person who watched a documentary). Alternatively, they claim some mass conspiracy to silence legitimate dissent, making even expert opinions irrelevant to them. How do even have a discussion with that group?

But this still leaves open the question of why there aren’t that many experts as Christians. Most of that is probably due to the general lack of religious scientists, but I think scientists in groups like evolutionary biology and climatology might have a harder time because they’re not only given the impression that they must deny what they know to be true but are also attacked as part of some conspiracy to silence dissent. (Again, that’s just speculation.)

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s really convenient to imply/infer what have you that we should just give up because we can’t convince corrupt superpowers to stop corrupting.

That doesn’t follow with what he said.

 

[Theo520]

I think people are missing the points of conflict.

None of the experts disagree on the direct impact from elevated C02 levels

• They agree on how much warming will be contributed for a given increase
• They agree on how it changes ocean PH levels

The experts do however disagree on the second order effects, the ‘feedbacks’. In particular, they don’t agree on how it will change water vapor, another GHG.

The battle to gain broad consensus and action resides in gaining consensus on the feedbacks and their impact.

IMHO, if we did have consensus now, nuclear plants would be sprouting like mushrooms all across the globe to replace coal generators, since the benefits far outweigh the risks for this non-ideal technology. We always seem to be close with solar and wind, but they have yet to fully mature and prove themselves in broadly meeting baseload expectations. I’m not suggesting it’s the ideal long term answer but it is a viable answer to save the patient (earth) before cardiac arrest.

 

[Delphinus]

I’m a science teacher, and therefore hardly an expert on the topic…but here is what I observe.

There is strong evidence for climate change. It’s hardly arguable that something is going on.

What is arguable is the cause. The earth is constantly going through climate change. It’s never the same, and constantly goes through cycles. There is strong evidence for man-made climate change, and against.

I can say this though - being eco-minded to a healthy degree never hurt anyone. Separate your recycling, bike or walk instead of drive when you can, reuse as much as you can, and try to eliminate plastics and artificial birth control as much as possible. (Yes, birth control. The hormones in the pill cannot be filtered out by sewage treatment and has contributed GREATLY to the decline of fish populations, especially in Pacific Northwest, and condoms are a BIG problem both in their manufacture and disposal!) Sadly, no one addresses the birth control problem because the left, a big partner in eco-friendly lifestyle, are also EXTREMELY pro-birth control…which ironically enough, is probably one of the bigger problems to the environment…but it’s not “PC” to talk about that one…

 

[ralfyman]

From the Final Statement of the 2018 PAS Plenary Session (the PAS is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences):

The new science of climate extremes has made it possible to link many weather extremes to climate change. During the next 25 years, intensification of weather extremes due to climate change can expose more than 1.5 billion people (20% of the population) to deadly heat stress and other attendant health risks. While the poorest among us (numbering over 3 billion) are most vulnerable, climate change has now the potential to adversely impact the wealthy too in the form of intense fires, floods and droughts. New research has also identified the risk that unabated greenhouse-gas emissions might push the planet into a ‘hothouse state’, with 5-6°C higher temperatures and up to 60 m sea level rise. Many solutions are still available to avert catastrophic impacts, including mass migrations. The fundamental challenge is to garner massive public support for climate actions. PAS can help immensely by forging an alliance between leaders in science, public health, policy makers and leaders of all faiths. The glue for such an alliance is the knowledge that both science and religion agree on protecting creation (nature) including the 7.5 billion people; and the knowledge that (because of our inaction to mitigate) climate change has become a huge moral ethical issue.

 

[Ender]

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

No one with a real understanding of climate science actually believes that there is a 97% consensus. That number is a complete fabrication.

 

[goout]

What I think about climate change doesn’t matter. The climate changes. That’s a scientific fact. I live in the US in an area that was covered by a HUGE layer of ice not very long ago (geologically speaking). Climate changes.

I think the idea that mankind is substantially altering the climate of the globe is a farce. I think the farce is fueled by gov’t>academia funding. Gov’t funding is the life’s blood of academia. And those who don’t “tow the line” in regard to political hot button issues are left without funding, which means no work. The political agenda behind AGW is nothing but redistribution of wealth.

Obtaining funding is a powerful motivator. Having lived and studied in that sphere for some time, this is a real thing. Now the science is covered over by a layer of religiosity that doesn’t tolerate what are called “deniers”, as if the science is a matter of religious belief.