Climate Change(d)?

[Elixir]

That I need to spell this out (having obviously been too subtle with my earlier comment) is hugely disappointing, but sadly, not surprising.

If RW propaganda guzzlers couldn't respond by putting words in your mouth, they wouldn't be able to respond at all.
You don't want to deny them their freeeeee! speech do you?

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't know the numbers. There are credentialed scientists who reject human causes. There are credentialed scientists who reject evolution.

By credentialed I mean PHDs from credible science programs.

I don't think there are very many left like that.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

READ MORE

 

[bilby]

I don't know the numbers. There are credentialed scientists who reject human causes. There are credentialed scientists who reject evolution.

By credentialed I mean PHDs from credible science programs.

I don't think there are very many left like that.

In either field.

 

[southernhybrid]

Better yet.....

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

88,125 studies agree. That's a lot of studies, compared to one person who keeps referring to climate change as part of a cult, without offering one piece of evidence.

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

“It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, the Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a co-author of the study,“Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

 

[bilby]

88,125 studies agree. That's a lot of studies, compared to one person who keeps referring to climate change as part of a cult, without offering one piece of evidence.

Now that's not entirely fair. He has offered a random sample of daytime temperatures in Santa Monica. It's not a particularly useful piece of evidence, but it is one piece of evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Santa Monica

Santa Monica Climate, Weather By Month, Average Temperature (California, United States) - Weather Spark

In Santa Monica, the summers are warm, arid, and clear and the winters are long, cool, wet, and partly cloudy. Over the course of the year, the temperature typically varies from 49°F to 76°F and is rarely below 43°F or above 84°F.

weatherspark.com

Looking at the two tables I'd say Santa Monica is trending up in temperature.

2010-2019 averages versus 1919-2020.

Santa Monica CA Average Temperatures by Month - Current Results

Detailed temperature information for Santa Monica, California with data on average monthly highs and lows plus number of days with hot or cold weather.

www.currentresults.com

 

[TSwizzle]

No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;

the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”

 

[steve_bank]

From the mouth of a decadent hot tubbing wine swilling beer guzzling Claifornian.

In the words of TSwizzle a notd Californian, 'You'll have to pry my guns, wime and hot tub from my cold dead hands'.

 

[steve_bank]

No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;

the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”

Yes Fizzle, it is not controversial.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Address the argument, not the person.

If you have information to add to the discussion, add it to the topic.
Don’t just display that you have nothing to add by attacking other posters. It’s embarassing for you and it’s a violation of the TOU.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No surprise that the cultists feel emboldened to air their anti human grievances;

It should not be controversial to say a population of 8 billion will have a grave impact on the climate.

The author doesn’t beat about the bush;

the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

Teh Gruaniad

p.s. it’s kinda funny how warning level draws one’s eyes to “Let’s Go Brandon”

But you are the "Let's Go Brandon" crowd.

And you are often attracted to the most radical of arguments regarding climate change. You post links to them and broad brush it to everyone that thinks sustainability is important, both via consumption and production. Or that they can recognize a trend. As noted in the OP, climate change is past tense, or at least, we are witnessing the impacts it has had on our environment already. The Earth is still trying to reach an equilibrium with the CO2 already in the atmosphere... CO2 that we continue to increase in emissions.

The impact is real, island nations are seeing serious sustainability issues regarding being flooded. High intensity storm events are increasing in frequency. Intensities our infrastructure (and even geology) isn't quite designed for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All the discussion of local weather made me realize something:

Back when His Flatulence was elected it rained. I posted a pic from the front entryway showing the rain and labeling it about god crying.

Someone noticed some "dead" plants in pots in our yard--actually, only the top dies and I hadn't gotten the dead stuff cut off yet when I took the picture. Since that time it's always been well into November before they die, sometimes even later.

There, proof of global warming.

 

[steve_bank]

Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.

Right. It is climate science and the deniers would have you believe that all these scientists, all around the world, are all liars, fabricating data and modeling doom in order to live off the luxurious bounty of government paychecks.

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't reject "the science" or "the evidence" per se. I reject that a minor, imperceptible increase in average temperature is going to cause a "climate breakdown" or "apocalypse" or whatever. "The science" (which most often is some bullshit study conducted by activists) predicts these earth shattering events on a regular basis and they have all failed to materialize.

If "the science" is usually bullshit, then why DON'T you reject it?

But more interesting is your obsession with the five-syllable word "imperceptible." That's a big word; do you even know what it means?
One degree can be a LOT! If my temperature rises 1 degree, I won't be allowed to enter many stores here in the Kingdom. Even more dramatic is a rise in the temperature of water from -0.5°C to 0.5°C. Perhaps you don't know what "imperceptible" means.

Four things I heard in the 90s.

Bird watchers have records of migrations going back to the 19th century. Birds are arriving up north earlier.

Cold weather trees up north are slowly moving north. No conscious choice. I imagine seeds that take root where it is a little colder do better

From U Wash. Globally lakes are warming. In Lake Washington salmon runs are timed to temperature. At a certain temperature an algae bloom occurs in Lake Washington. The bloom feeds prey fish for the salmon. As the lake warms the bloom occurs a little earlier. Salmon arrive past peak rey fish.

Pacific shallow water coast marine life are migrating north to keep in their optimum water temperature.

A lot of plant and animal life are tied to temperature.

Some fresh water lake fishermen drop a thermometer down to see temperature versus depth. Some fish tend to feed at a certain temperture.

A lot of litte things that can add up to a serious impact on our ocean food supply.

Big fish eat the small fish. Bigger fish eat the big fish. We eat the bigger fish. The small fish dies and bo bigger fish for us to eat.

It is not rocket science.

Right. It is climate science and the deniers would have you believe that all these scientists, all around the world, are all liars, fabricating data and modeling doom in order to live off the luxurious bounty of government paychecks.

Change IS perceptible! Total mass of all insects on the planet is declining 2.5% per year by best estimates. Is that a perceptible difference? It certainly is, since the 2.5% is just an AVERAGE, with much greater losses for some species and some locales. For example a Puerto Rico study showed a 98% fall in ground insects over 35 years. (Habitat destruction and use of pesticides contribute more to insect demise than climate change.) As insect numbers decline, so will their predators: birds, bats, frogs and reptiles.

As steve points out, changes in ocean life are very profound. Deniers slightly smarter than our own Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.

Little discussed, but especially ominous IMO is the "take-over" by jellyfish which now outnumber fish in parts of the ocean. (Again, this is caused by other effects of high human population as well as warming.)

Recent studies are now accentuating that jellyfish population’s bloom are more frequent and are continuously increasing in size and therefore has become quite problematic and are in fact a threat to the natural balance of marine ecosystems and towards human beings as a whole, with increases as large as 94,000 tons escalating to 400, 000,000 tons in wet weight over a 100 km area in just 5 years. Increased human activities such as over-fishing, global warming, eutrophication, translocation and habitat modification are shown by investigations to be the main reasons for this sudden global outbreak in jellyfish, suggesting that with the recent increase in human population continuously rising, matters are potentially worsening. The jellyfish epidemic is creating irreversible disturbances within the ecosystem, ultimately becoming the dominant species over fish within many global areas, by filling the newly provided ecological niche created by overfishing, in which due to the jellyfish’s diet, could be potentially an irreparable change, in which the fish cannot return back to dominance and the jellyfish’s rein continues to grow. Tremendous negativity surrounds the ever growing jellyfish blooms affecting costal industries in Japan, to tourism in Australia and aquaculture farming within a variety of species worldwide.

. . . As a result jellyfish, not fish, threaten to become the dominant animal group of the marine world.

Watch those zeroes! An increase from 94,000 tons to 400,000,000 is not a four-fold increase as it may seem at first glance; it is a 4000-fold increase.

 

[bilby]

Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.

For another thing, wars have been fought over fishing boats being a little bit further North than their usual grounds. It's no trivial thing to move a fishery.

 

[Elixir]

Denier will rebut with "Fishing boats should just move a little to the north to compensate for warmer temperatures," but it isn't that simple. For one thing, rising acidity has a large adverse effect on shell-fish and coral reefs.

For another thing, wars have been fought over fishing boats being a little bit further North than their usual grounds. It's no trivial thing to move a fishery.

Also…
Species don’t stand alone, they’re part of ecosystems. You can’t just move ecosystems “a little to the north“. They would move themselves if the change was sufficiently gradual, but anthropogenic climate change happens in a geologic blink of an eye. Species have no chance to move all their food sources, symbiotic organisms etc. “Move a little north” is another simple, elegant and WRONG solution to a complex problem.

 

[atrib]

I know I'm probably wasting my time asking you this, but why do you reject the science after so many years of evidence?

You are making the mistake of believing that the poster's stated views are sincere, and not an elaborate piece of long-running performance art.

 

[Elixir]

Not all scientists always and all the time.

Not all scientists agree always and all the time on ANYTHING. Yet, some things are true, regardless of who disagrees.
And most scientists tend to agree most of the time on those things that can be validated via the scientific method. Like AGW for instance.