Climate chage report

[GTWT]

The executive summary:

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

Quote

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

Does any intelligent, educated person doubt that the climate is changing, that that change is primarily in response to human activity, & that the consequences of that change will be catastrophic?   

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by GTWT

[Mean Green 93-98]

Of course.  Many do.

[Wookies]

The refusal to take any reals steps against climate change is driven by the greed of the oil and gas industry. They continually argue that its not "settled science" when 98 out of 100 climate scientists would agree with this report. If 98 doctors told you you had cancer and 2 said don't worry about it we would all start cancer treatment immediately. Some cities like Miami Beach are already paying the price. Due to flooding they are already experiencing they have to find someway to raise the level of their city something like 3 feet to try and get ahead on the rising tides.

When the city of Denton voters passed an ordinance to regulate gas wells in the city limits it was overturned by Austin. Funny how the Texas GOP wants autonomy from the Federal government, but wont allow it for their own cities.

Also, drive up north of Denton towards Muenster and all the ranches between here and their and ask the ranchers how badly their water wells have been poisoned by fracking. Not one or two, but thousands of water wells poisoned and no one gives a crap.

I'm all for growing the economy and making as much money as possible for everyone, but it can't come at the expense of peoples health or lives.

[LongJim]

Climate has fluctuated over millennia.  It always will.  Should we do what is necessary to lessen man's negative impact?  Yes.  

But it is not "settled science", nor is it exact science.  And that's the problem.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, LongJim said:

Climate has fluctuated over millennia.  It always will.  Should we do what is necessary to lessen man's negative impact?  Yes.  

But it is not "settled science", nor is it exact science.  And that's the problem.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

There's no such thing as "settled science'. Science is always tentative - building on the next study - and always subject to the possibility of disproof.  That said, some science is so well supported that only the ignorant argue against it's conclusions - e.g., a spherical earth and evolution.  The data supporting anthropogenic climate change is so convincing that, as Wookies said, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept that earth's climate is changing, the overwhelming cause is human release of fossil CO2m, and that the results are likely to be catastrophic.  

Of course, our president agrees with you.  Feel better?

[LongJim]

15 minutes ago, GTWT said:

  That said, some science is so well supported that only the ignorant argue against it's conclusions - e.g., a spherical earth...

Of course, our president agrees with you.  Feel better?

Hopefully you read the link I included. 

Apparently their are a few "ignorant" scientists?  Or maybe they are stupid?  Or are they just careless with data or willfully misleading?  I don't want to believe that's the case.  Too bad peers didn't really review the data properly.   But that's what happens sometimes when there are agendas and research $ involved 

I choose to be skeptical of anyone claiming to be an expert on anything that potentially involves government or taxpayer $.

I don't agree with you = Trump supporter.  Awesome.

I guess you don't really want discourse on this subject.

[Mean Green 93-98]

37 minutes ago, LongJim said:

I don't agree with you = Trump supporter. 

You forgot "ignorant."

[KRAM1]

I hate to weigh in....but here goes.

I think the vast majority of people see/feel/know that some degree of climate change is most definitely is occurring. I think the difference people have is more in the cause of that change and not whether it is occurring or not. Just my two cents.

[LongJim]

Here's a pretty good blog post that sums up a lot of my thoughts on this subject. 

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

[Wookies]

We can all google some report somewhere that supports our side of the argument. My point is this, the exhaust gases from burning fossil fuels is poisonous to all living things on this planet and damaging to our environment. We know this to be fact. I personally believe it has an affect on the changing of our climate, to what degree I don't know. We should be working on alternative energy sources to slowly replace as much fossil fuel use as possible. That process has been derailed by the oil and gas industry and their lobbists for decades all so Exxon can report another multi-billion dollar quarterly revenue. Surely at some point we start acting on behalf of our planet and the people that live on it.

[GTWT]

6 hours ago, LongJim said:

Hopefully you read the link I included. 

 

The link to RealClimate.org supports what I said.  Science is tentative & subject to revision as new data are gathered & new analyses made.  I'm glad you're familiar with that site.  It is worth your attention.

[GTWT]

2 hours ago, LongJim said:

Here's a pretty good blog post that sums up a lot of my thoughts on this subject. 

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

The post you link to is written by David Segal "Entrepreneur, writer, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project".  You might want to actually read what scientists have to say about the subject.  The recently released report is a great place to start (link in original post)..

 

 

[GTWT]

4 hours ago, KRAM1 said:

I hate to weigh in....but here goes.

I think the vast majority of people see/feel/know that some degree of climate change is most definitely is occurring. I think the difference people have is more in the cause of that change and not whether it is occurring or not. Just my two cents.

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas.  Over the last 150 years humans have released massive amounts of CO2 by burning oil, gas, & coal.  The increase in mean global temperatures over that time correlates strongly with the increase in atmospheric CO2.  That seems to support the hypothesis that the increase in mean global temperatures over that time is anthropogenic.  What alternative hypothesis fits the data?  Sun spots?

[LongJim]

41 minutes ago, GTWT said:

The post you link to is written by David Segal "Entrepreneur, writer, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project".  You might want to actually read what scientists have to say about the subject.  The recently released report is a great place to start (link in original post)..

 

 

Yes, I'm aware of the author's credentials. 

The many links to other scientific sources within the article are what is worth your while.  

[GTWT]

21 minutes ago, LongJim said:

Yes, I'm aware of the author's credentials. 

The many links to other scientific sources within the article are what is worth your while.  

Yes they are.  I don't have time to go over all your author's links right now but I did follow his first link which was in response to his 1st point - "Weather id not climate.  There is no conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, drought, floods, or cold or heat waves."  Yet the link this expert provides ( https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ ) says just the opposite"

Quote

 

• ea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
• Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content.  Modeling studies on average project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm for a 2 degree Celsius global warming scenario.
• Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.  Storm size responses to anthropogenic warming are uncertain.
• The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century.  There is less confidence in future projections of the global number of Category 4 and 5 storms, since most modeling studies project a decrease (or little change) in the global frequency of all tropical cyclones combined.

The authors (real scientists) acknowledge much more needs to be learned about the link between anthropogenic climate change and storm frequency but, again, that's the nature of science.  We don't know everything about any topic - and that's the nature of science.

Edited November 26, 2018 by GTWT
that last pp shouldn't be in quotes. It's my verbage.

[GTWT]

One more then I really need to watch my Big Bang Theory reruns.  Segal doesn't link to any support for his second point (about distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change) but the link in the third point (about the problems with climate modelling) is to Dr. Roy Spencer.  Spencer is an adherent of creationism.  Funny how science denialists in one subject seem to be sympathetic to other subjects of denial.

Now, Penny.

[KRAM1]

Sooooooo...what will be done about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and on and on? U.S. cannot solve this issue alone no matter what we do. How does one get these folks on board if, in fact, humans are the cause. Saw a report recently that the ozone layer was “healing”. That’s good, right? But, seems to me that this is a global issue and “global” doesn’t seem to be playing ball even after signing some “agreements on climate change” that like most U.N.-esque agreements place the majority of blame and burden on the U.S. 

Big issue. Going to take some smart folks to solve. And world governments that do more than sign worthless agreements that are not followed, but whose signers can claim how righteous they are all the while billowing tons and tons of co2 and other garbage. How we gonna fix that? Huh? 🤷‍♂️

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Just because those countries are messing it up .. doesn't mean we should too...  like it or not it exists... and appears to be a lot due to man and our pollution..  Hopefully the others will get better... China is the big bad one of the list .. the others... not so much. ( India is not  that industrial) ..and China  is finally  catching on they now have a mess.... bad water and nearly unbreathable air in many places. Can't correct it over night and companies don't like to spend money to stop it especially when their competitors doesn't. They will have to be forced to do something by their government. . Who denies it here... mostly big companies (not all) that don't want  to spend money to stop polluting. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

5 hours ago, KRAM1 said:

Sooooooo...what will be done about China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and on and on? U.S. cannot solve this issue alone no matter what we do. How does one get these folks on board if, in fact, humans are the cause. Saw a report recently that the ozone layer was “healing”. That’s good, right? But, seems to me that this is a global issue and “global” doesn’t seem to be playing ball even after signing some “agreements on climate change” that like most U.N.-esque agreements place the majority of blame and burden on the U.S. 

Big issue. Going to take some smart folks to solve. And world governments that do more than sign worthless agreements that are not followed, but whose signers can claim how righteous they are all the while billowing tons and tons of co2 and other garbage. How we gonna fix that? Huh? 🤷‍♂️

The way to bring China, India, et al. in line is NOT to back out of our international agreements and commitments.  The way to set an example for the rest of the world is NOT to elect leaders who deny the reality of climate change and denigrate the science and the scientists supporting the science.

We're America.  We should set an example for the rest of the world, not use the rest of the world's bad actors as an excuse for not doing what we should.

[KRAM1]

20 minutes ago, GTWT said:

The way to bring China, India, et al. in line is NOT to back out of our international agreements and commitments.  The way to set an example for the rest of the world is NOT to elect leaders who deny the reality of climate change and denigrate the science and the scientists supporting the science.

We're America.  We should set an example for the rest of the world, not use the rest of the world's bad actors as an excuse for not doing what we should.

Just playing devil’s advocate here...So, we should stay in bad international agreements that put the burden and expense squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. and let others like Russia, China, India, Mexico skate so we can “feel and look” good to the folks taking advantage of us and our naive politicians who agree to such one-way deals? Asking for a friend? 😂😂😂

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, KRAM1 said:

Just playing devil’s advocate here...So, we should stay in bad international agreements that put the burden and expense squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. and let others like Russia, China, India, Mexico skate so we can “feel and look” good to the folks taking advantage of us and our naive politicians who agree to such one-way deals? Asking for a friend? 😂😂😂

So, because we think the Chinese & Indians aren't doing enough, we should do nothing? 

[KRAM1]

17 minutes ago, GTWT said:

So, because we think the Chinese & Indians aren't doing enough, we should do nothing? 

Where was it ever said we should do nothing? And why not actually answer my question? And, that would be the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Canadians, Ukrainians, Japanese, North Koreans, South Koreans and on and on. 

[GTWT]

1 minute ago, KRAM1 said:

Where was it ever said we should do nothing? And why not actually answer my question? And, that would be the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Canadians, Ukrainians, Japanese, North Koreans, South Koreans and on and on. 

First, not everyone agrees that the Paris Accord was a 'one-way deal'.  Europe & the US agreed to greater percentage reductions.  China, India, & Brazil to more modest reductions.  Nigeria, Dominican Republic, et al. to even more modest reductions.  

Whether you think this fair or not it was in line with realistic abilities to meet accord obligations.  It has, or had, a realistic chance of 1) having a meaningful effect & 2) leading to further, meaningful measures.

It could also be argued that over the last 150 years most of the CO2 release has been by Europe & the US & that now we should accept greater responsibility for our planet.

[UNTLifer]

On 11/24/2018 at 10:17 PM, Wookies said:

The refusal to take any reals steps against climate change is driven by the greed of the oil and gas industry. They continually argue that its not "settled science" when 98 out of 100 climate scientists would agree with this report. If 98 doctors told you you had cancer and 2 said don't worry about it we would all start cancer treatment immediately. Some cities like Miami Beach are already paying the price. Due to flooding they are already experiencing they have to find someway to raise the level of their city something like 3 feet to try and get ahead on the rising tides.

When the city of Denton voters passed an ordinance to regulate gas wells in the city limits it was overturned by Austin. Funny how the Texas GOP wants autonomy from the Federal government, but wont allow it for their own cities.

Also, drive up north of Denton towards Muenster and all the ranches between here and their and ask the ranchers how badly their water wells have been poisoned by fracking. Not one or two, but thousands of water wells poisoned and no one gives a crap.

I'm all for growing the economy and making as much money as possible for everyone, but it can't come at the expense of peoples health or lives.

Seriously?  The United States is one of these nations polluting the earth the least.  Look to China and countries of their ilk that don't care about the consequences of their actions.

[UNTLifer]

On 11/25/2018 at 12:33 PM, GTWT said:

evolution.  

Don't believe that is settled.