Climate Change(d)?

[Swammerdami]

What is peculiar is politicians and activists screaming we are all going to die because the planet is on fire when clearly that is not true.

First: "politicians and activists" are not the proper sources for information about science. That job falls to scientists.
I'm guessing that your complaint is that someone has exaggerated. Let's explore that:

• If a "politician" or "activist" exaggerates a scientist's conclusion, does that make the scientist wrong?
• Anyway, who exactly screamed that "we are all going to die because the planet is on fire"?
• Could it be that you yourself have exaggerated here?
• Can you clarify your position with more dispassionate diction?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you point to a specific science result that you have an issue with, while citing an appropriate scientific article that states that result? You said earlier that you do have "more than none" exposure to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of climate change, so could you cite an article that you feel best supports your position?

I have posted numerous times on this thread responding to bullshit climate apocalypse "science". Your most recent attempt was only a couple of days ago.

So, you have no scientific citations backing up your position, then?

You are conflating two things: the actual science presented by climate scientists and the apocalyptic proclamations of non-scientist politicians. This thread is primarily for the former, while you are ranting about the latter, which would be better positioned in the political forums here.

I have no problem with you having a political opinion about political statements. But the problem is that you suggest that the science itself is flawed, yet have no evidence supporting your position, other than your distaste for the politicians.

 

[TSwizzle]

Can you point to a specific science result that you have an issue with, while citing an appropriate scientific article that states that result? You said earlier that you do have "more than none" exposure to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of climate change, so could you cite an article that you feel best supports your position?

I have posted numerous times on this thread responding to bullshit climate apocalypse "science". Your most recent attempt was only a couple of days ago.

So, you have no scientific citations backing up your position, then?

My position is, until I see evidence that there is a climate apocalypse, I will remain a skeptic.

You are conflating two things: the actual science presented by climate scientists and the apocalyptic proclamations of non-scientist politicians. This thread is primarily for the former, while you are ranting about the latter, which would be better positioned in the political forums here.

I have no problem with you having a political opinion about political statements. But the problem is that you suggest that the science itself is flawed, yet have no evidence supporting your position, other than your distaste for the politicians.

As I said in my previous post, I have responded to the "science" in this thread.

So unless you have something new to say, I guess you are done.

 

[scombrid]

What is peculiar is politicians and activists screaming we are all going to die because the planet is on fire when clearly that is not true.

That job falls to scientists.

Nah you should go to the Joe Rogan Experience and listen to George Knapp, Jeremy Corbell, Bob Lazar, Bret Weinstein, Lou Elizondo, Tony Heller, etc... The right wing knows the twoof about real science.

 

[steve_bank]

Hey Mr TSwizzle do you question my last post?

It is a sunny clear winter day. The sun adds heat to the ground and buildings. Building heaters add heat.

As the sun goes down a low thick overcast rolls in. Will the night time temperatures be higher or lower with an overcast sky? This is not a trick question and is relayed to how global warming works. You will hear the answer on weather reporting.

 

[TSwizzle]

Technically we need to aim for Net Negative, as we have around 20 to 40 more years of bonus CO2 into the atmosphere. If we can get that CO2 to gasoline/plastics thing working on an industrial scale, that would likely get us there. Can't say if that is as big an if as cold fusion though.

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop, particularly the "anthropogenic" CO2 contribution. CO2 is not the be all and end all of the climate. There are plenty of other factors to take into consideration.

 

[southernhybrid]

I doubt this will change anyone in denial's mind, but the article I'm about to quote from is from an actual science source. It might be behind a paywall, but I think that Scientific American usually allows nonsubscriber a few free articles a month, but I'll quote enough to other posters get the idea.

First, I will mention that about 1 5 years ago, I attended a lecture given by a geology professor about climate change. He did a good job of explaining the evidence. He showed us graphs that went back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and the invention of the car. The graphs showed a continuing line of gradually increasing temperatures, unlike anything one would see by natural climate change, which usually takes place over thousands of years, not a couple of hundred years. It was obvious that the increase in the use of oil, gas, methane etc. were causing changes in the climate unlike anything seen by prior human societies. There is now so much information out there, that it's hard to understand why anyone would deny that human activity isn't having an impact on the climate, unless they have a closed mind.

Of course, some people don't want to see this, so they turn away and refuse to consider the possibility. I also would think that even if they don't understand how the climate is changing, they would at least care about the environment, the fact that about 1/4 or maybe it's 1/3rd of the world's population is suffering from drought, and related food shortages, even if it's not a problem yet where they live. It has become political. The problem isn't the left so much. The problem is that the right is denying this is happening for their own political purposes. I doubt all of my gas guzzling neighbors who drive RAM trucks etc. would want to feel guilty or change their behavior, so let's pretend that none of this is happening. In fact, while I would have to search for the articles I've read, the far right is literally trying to deny science, not just when it comes to climate change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-has-had-cascading-effects-across-the-arctic/

Wildfires forced evacuations across Canada. Greenland was so warm that a research station at the ice sheet summit recorded melting in late June, only its fifth melting event on record. Sea surface temperatures in the Barents, Kara, Laptev and Beaufort seas were 9 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit (5 to 7 degrees Celsius) above normal in August.

While reliable instrument measurements go back only to around 1900, it’s almost certain this was the Arctic’s hottest summer in centuries.

The year started out unusually wet, and snow accumulation during the winter of 2022-23 was above average across much the Arctic. But by May, high spring temperatures had left the North American snowpack at a record low, exposing ground that quickly warmed and dried, fueling lightning-sparked fires across Canada.

In the 2023 Arctic Report Card, released Dec. 12, we brought together 82 Arctic scientists from around the world to assess the Arctic’s vital signs, the changes underway and their effects on lives across the region and around the world.


The Arctic’s declining sea ice has been a big contributor to the tremendous increase in average fall temperatures across the region. Dark open water absorbs the sun’s rays during the summer and, in the autumn, acts as a heating pad, releasing heat back into the atmosphere. Even thin sea ice can greatly limit this heat transfer and allow dramatic cooling of air just above the surface, but the past 17 years have seen the lowest sea ice extents on record.

SUBSEA PERMAFROST: A WILD CARD FOR CLIMATE​

The report includes 12 essays exploring the effects of climate and ecosystem changes across the Arctic and how communities are adapting. One is a wake-up call about the risks in subsea permafrost, a potentially dangerous case of “out of sight, out of mind.”

Subsea permafrost is frozen soil in the ocean floor that is rich in organic matter. It has been gradually thawing since it was submerged after Northern Hemisphere ice sheets retreated thousands of years ago. Today, warmer ocean temperatures are likely accelerating the thawing of this hidden permafrost.

Indigenous observers describe changes in the sea ice that many people rely on for both subsistence hunting and coastal protection from storms. They have noted shifts in wind patterns and increasingly intense ocean storms. On land, rising temperatures are making river ice less reliable for travel, and thawing permafrost is sinking roads and destabilizing homes.

Obvious and dramatic changes are happening within human lifetimes, and they cut to the core of Indigenous cultures to the point that people are having to change how they put food on the table.

It's true that we don't have a climate apocalypse yet in Santa Monica, but if you would open your mind and read more about this issue, you'd realize that some parts of the world are already suffering from a climate apocalypse, to use your term.

There are already parts of the US that are running out of water. Raising cattle takes up an enormous amount of water. The signs are there that we may be facing an apocalypse, at least when it comes to water, in the not too distant future, without drastic measures. Can we fix it? I seriously doubt it so I'm becoming a doomer, as the term is called. Nations are only making tiny changes and most people aren't willing to change their habits. If we survive as a species, our way of living will change drastically. Well not mine. I'll be long dead before the worst happens, not so sure about my grandkids.

And then we have plastics! Who knew that most of us would have microscopic bits of plastic in our guts, or that the oceans would be so full of plastic bits that wildlife is being killed off by plastic. Okay. That's enough. We humans have fucked up the environment in a big way, especially those of us in places like the US, Europe, etc.

 

[steve_bank]

Technically we need to aim for Net Negative, as we have around 20 to 40 more years of bonus CO2 into the atmosphere. If we can get that CO2 to gasoline/plastics thing working on an industrial scale, that would likely get us there. Can't say if that is as big an if as cold fusion though.

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop, particularly the "anthropogenic" CO2 contribution. CO2 is not the be all and end all of the climate. There are plenty of other factors to take into consideration.

Santa Monica, located in the heart of the Great State Of Denial USA.

 

[TSwizzle]

"science"

Right out of the gate, the first illustration tells me I am dealing with propaganda. A picture of a forlorn polar bear standing on a floating piece of ice, the caption "A view of the partially melting glaciers as a polar bears, one of the species most affected by climate change, walk in Svalbard and Jan Mayen, on July 15, 2023."

This isn't science. It's an essay written by a climate activist.

 

[steve_bank]

"science"

Right out of the gate, the first illustration tells me I am dealing with propaganda. A picture of a forlorn polar bear standing on a floating piece of ice, the caption "A view of the partially melting glaciers as a polar bears, one of the species most affected by climate change, walk in Svalbard and Jan Mayen, on July 15, 2023."

This isn't science. It's an essay written by a climate activist.

That there may be propaganda that is misleading even wrong by overzealous climate activists does not invalidate the science behind climate change issues.

The flip side is overzealous climate change deniers, like yourself.

There i no science behind the climate chnge deniers.

You yorsekf has not rresnded to the last posts I made explaining to you in neral terms how air polution leads to glabla warming.

Facts do not matter to zealots. For example Trump suppoters.


I am not a scientist, but I applied science for some 30 years in my work. I am a pragmatc realist that goes by data not speculation or emotion.

Yiu can post all your links on science, but I am gronded in science and I know what science is and how it works.

 

[bilby]

My position is, until I see evidence that there is a climate apocalypse, I will remain a skeptic.

That's great. By the same reasoning, you are presumably skeptical of the existence of nuclear weapons.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Can you point to a specific science result that you have an issue with, while citing an appropriate scientific article that states that result? You said earlier that you do have "more than none" exposure to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of climate change, so could you cite an article that you feel best supports your position?

I have posted numerous times on this thread responding to bullshit climate apocalypse "science". Your most recent attempt was only a couple of days ago.

So, you have no scientific citations backing up your position, then?

My position is, until I see evidence that there is a climate apocalypse, I will remain a skeptic.

Are we moving the goalpost from climate change to climate apocalypse? What scientific definition of “apocalypse” should we be judging?

There is plenty of evidence of climate change, and further that the change is caused by human activity.

Whether it brings an apocalypse depends on mutliple things, including how one defines apocalypse.

You are conflating two things: the actual science presented by climate scientists and the apocalyptic proclamations of non-scientist politicians. This thread is primarily for the former, while you are ranting about the latter, which would be better positioned in the political forums here.

I have no problem with you having a political opinion about political statements. But the problem is that you suggest that the science itself is flawed, yet have no evidence supporting your position, other than your distaste for the politicians.

As I said in my previous post, I have responded to the "science" in this thread.

So unless you have something new to say, I guess you are done.

If I felt you were receptive to a discussion of the actual science I might say something new but you show no evidence of being moved by an intelligent, nuanced discussion of the facts.

You claim to be familiar with the actual published science but have not made any reference to anything that supports your position.

If you are interested in the actual science you can check out NASA’s climate page, for instance, and track all the evidence.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Technically we need to aim for Net Negative, as we have around 20 to 40 more years of bonus CO2 into the atmosphere. If we can get that CO2 to gasoline/plastics thing working on an industrial scale, that would likely get us there. Can't say if that is as big an if as cold fusion though.

This obsession with CO2 needs to stop, particularly the "anthropogenic" CO2 contribution. CO2 is not the be all and end all of the climate. There are plenty of other factors to take into consideration.

You are right that CO2 is not the “be all and end all” of the climate but it plays a very large role, as does methane.

It has been known since the late 1800s that increased CO2 will cause warming of the atmosphere (see, for example, the works of Tyndall and Arrhenius).

From NASA’s page (you may need to go there for these links to work):

1. In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
   
   In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndallrecognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
   
   In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankoviclinked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956.
   
   

 

[TSwizzle]

Are we moving the goalpost from climate change to climate apocalypse? What scientific definition of “apocalypse” should we be judging?

There is plenty of evidence of climate change, and further that the change is caused by human activity.

Whether it brings an apocalypse depends on mutliple things, including how one defines apocalypse.

The fact that the earth's climate changes has never been in dispute. You are back on the "denier/heretic" theme again.

If I felt you were receptive to a discussion of the actual science I might say something new but you show no evidence of being moved by an intelligent, nuanced discussion of the facts.

You claim to be familiar with the actual published science but have not made any reference to anything that supports your position.

If you are interested in the actual science you can check out NASA’s climate page, for instance, and track all the evidence.

Crack on fella.

 

[pood]

Sure, Jan, crack on fella … what brilliant, illuminating discourse.

 

[bilby]

The fact that the earth's climate changes has never been in dispute

The fact that it has never, in all of human history, changed as radically as in the last few decades is also not in dispute.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

Climate Scientist: You are driving straight towards the Grand Canyon!!
TSwizze: Sure Jan. The fact that I am driving isn't in dispute. I have been driving for ages; Sometimes I go up hill, sometimes downhill. It's nothing to get excited about.
Climate Scientist: The cliff in front of you is FAR steeper than any hill you have ever driven on!
TSwizle: Crack on fella.

 

[Elixir]

Climate Scientist: The cliff in front of you is FAR steeper than any hill you have ever driven on!
TSwizle: Crack on fella.

Good chance that Swiz will never see the worst of it, even if he’s a teenager living a healthy lifestyle, and never falls victim to accident or illness. People have been dying from natural disasters ever since there were people. As long as the disasters are not happening in Santa Monica, who cares what happens to the suckers living in deserts and on icebergs? They’re asking for it in the first place. Likely he can die peacefully of old age, uttering the last words “Told you so! Nyah Nyah na Nyah Nyah!”

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are we moving the goalpost from climate change to climate apocalypse? What scientific definition of “apocalypse” should we be judging?

There is plenty of evidence of climate change, and further that the change is caused by human activity.

Whether it brings an apocalypse depends on mutliple things, including how one defines apocalypse.

The fact that the earth's climate changes has never been in dispute. You are back on the "denier/heretic" theme again.

like a broken record here. That’s your favorite strawman argument. Climate scientists aren’t saying it doesn’t change. The only reason you know that has changed in the past is because the scientists have told you. And now they are telling you that anthropogenic sources are changing it far more rapidly than any natural process can account for. You believe them for the former but not for the latter. Yet you have given no good reason for that; you just are unhappy with the non-scientists, so you project that on the scientists too.

If you had a good argument to support your position you wouldn’t need to rely on petty pedantry.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This looks natural, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But I haven’t seen an Interest on your part in having a substantive discussion of actual science .

I would sooner discuss the science surrounding miracles or the resurrection with Christians than the nonsense that gets posted here. Actual science would be a novelty.

Actual science does get posted here but you are falling into the common trap of not being able to comprehend blasphemy to your faith. (And "faith" in this context doesn't require any deity.)