Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Cyclonic Activity is below average, Tornadic Activity is below average, Wildfires are below average. The only thing extreme is the cold.

 

[Minibull]

If you would, could you state what it is you would have to see to be convinced climate change is occurring?

Remember, you are talking to a type of mentality that successfully argued for decades that tobacco does not cause health problems or that the universe is 3000 years old.

Science/scientists are bad evil people, unless they discover something that can be sold at a massive profit.

 

[Orangeslice13]

As far as I can tell, the only way you and others can discuss this issue is by constructing straw men. Obviously weather has always existed and will continue to exist. This includes cold and warm events, droughts and floods, etc. You don't seem to get that what the weather is like this week actually doesn't have much bearing on the 30 year climate picture. They're two different scales.



If you would, could you state what it is you would have to see to be convinced climate change is occurring?

In the billions of years this planet has existed the climate has been gradually changing. It gets hotter...it gets colder.... You'll get no argument from most on climate change.
Till you add the politics of "man made climate change". When anyone disagrees bart and his groupies the labels get broken out. I find it hard to take anyone seriously that calls everyone who disagrees a denyer.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Remember, you are talking to a type of mentality that successfully argued for decades that tobacco does not cause health problems or that the universe is 3000 years old.

Science/scientists are bad evil people, unless they discover something that can be sold at a massive profit.

Yeah. Another guy to put words in people's mouths so they can argue against it.

 

[Minibull]

Cyclonic Activity is below average, Tornadic Activity is below average, Wildfires are below average. The only thing extreme is the cold.

I love random statements with nothing to back them up...

Here's a link telling how we are experiencing more extreme weather now:

Extreme weather becoming more common, study says | Environment | The Guardian

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Remember, you are talking to a type of mentality that successfully argued for decades that tobacco does not cause health problems or that the universe is 3000 years old.

Science/scientists are bad evil people, unless they discover something that can be sold at a massive profit.

Not even close. But nice attempt at lumping us with past issues. Pretty sure Drs & Scientists recommend smoking, cocaine, heroine, lumbotomies, and electro-shock therapy too. Where they right or wrong?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

I love random statements with nothing to back them up...

Here's a link telling how we are experiencing more extreme weather now:

Extreme weather becoming more common, study says | Environment | The Guardian

the Guardian says there is more extreme weather? Well I give up then. This is a big thread and you can go back and find the links or Google it yourself but Global Cyclonic activity has been well below average for the past 2 years and has not increased or decreased since the 1970s.

If the weather now was so extreme since we have been pumping so much CO2 since 1970 then wouldn't hurricane strength be increasing drastically?

 

[volinbham]

I love random statements with nothing to back them up...

Here's a link telling how we are experiencing more extreme weather now:

Extreme weather becoming more common, study says | Environment | The Guardian

A couple caveats are in order.

1) The study goes back 35 years. Clearly there could be patterns of blocking and extreme weather in earlier time periods.

2) It states directly in the linked article that it is speculative to draw a causal link between blocking and recent temperature change and the authors and other climate scientists acknowledge that current climate models are incapable of drawing such a linkage.

3) The study period with the extremes (from 2000) is in the heart of the pause in temperature increases.

So in the end we have a correlation study covering a "moment in time" in climate change terms.

 

[theFallGuy]

Remember, you are talking to a type of mentality that successfully argued for decades that tobacco does not cause health problems or that the universe is 3000 years old.

Science/scientists are bad evil people, unless they discover something that can be sold at a massive profit.

Doctors recommended smoking actually but nice try.

 

[LouderVol]

Let's not forget that there are peddlers of falsehood on both sides of this issue.

When the head of the EPA claims Aspen will be the same climate as Amarillo and science writers claim climate change is causing acidification of the ocean (2 recent examples in this thread) why wouldn't people be skeptical of "science".

i believe i am one of those two examples, and if so you are miss labeling me. I don't think climate change is causing the acidity level to rise. I was just pointing out there has been a rise in the acidity and it has had a documented effect on animal life. in the coral reefs to be exact.

 

[Minibull]

Not even close. But nice attempt at lumping us with past issues. Pretty sure Drs & Scientists recommend smoking, cocaine, heroine, lumbotomies, and electro-shock therapy too. Where they right or wrong?

And at one point, doctors thought bleeding a patient would remove the bad humours that was causing a person to be sick. Were they right or wrong?

Science advances, leading to new understanding of how the world works. Back in the 1920s-1940s, doctors did recommended smoking, then (amazingly enough), studies showed the many adverse health affects of it. I doubt you can find a doctor today that would tell you to start smoking.

The problem I have with this topic is that the only reason people are arguing against it is because any attempt at correction would cost money, rather than discussing the data itself. If the carbon buildup in the atmosphere could be lowered and this correction would have zero cost to industry, would anyone still be arguing against it?

 

[LouderVol]

And at one point, doctors thought bleeding a patient would remove the bad humours that was causing a person to be sick. Were they right or wrong?

Science advances, leading to new understanding of how the world works. Back in the 1920s-1940s, doctors did recommended smoking, then (amazingly enough), studies showed the many adverse health affects of it. I doubt you can find a doctor today that would tell you to start smoking.

The problem I have with this topic is that the only reason people are arguing against it is because any attempt at correction would cost money, rather than discussing the data itself. If the carbon buildup in the atmosphere could be lowered and this correction would have zero cost to industry, would anyone still be arguing against it?

my problem are the alarmists. Right or wrong they need to come up with real ways to deal with the issue. imo they are too busy saying "the sky is falling the sky is falling" and not enough time getting out of the way/fixing the problem/figuring out how to. and no, the carbon tax/cap'n'trade would not be fixing the problem. if what they say is true, the carbon tax isn't fixing the problem it is just passing on responsibility to someone else.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

You just lumped me in with the "smoking is good for you" crowd. In addition the most vocal leaders of Global Warming A) arent scientists and B) have been wrong.

How are we supposed to take you seriously?

 

[volinbham]

i believe i am one of those two examples, and if so you are miss labeling me. I don't think climate change is causing the acidity level to rise. I was just pointing out there has been a rise in the acidity and it has had a documented effect on animal life. in the coral reefs to be exact.

I wasn't referring to you - sorry for the confusion.

I was referring to an article posted here that made the claim. The article misrepresented the science.

 

[volinbham]

my problem are the alarmists. Right or wrong they need to come up with real ways to deal with the issue. imo they are too busy saying "the sky is falling the sky is falling" and not enough time getting out of the way/fixing the problem/figuring out how to. and no, the carbon tax/cap'n'trade would not be fixing the problem. if what they say is true, the carbon tax isn't fixing the problem it is just passing on responsibility to someone else.

This is where I'm at basically. I'm in the "luke-warmest" camp.

Often times too, the alarmists have an economic benefit <cough> Al Gore <cough>

 

[LouderVol]

This is where I'm at basically. I'm in the "luke-warmest" camp.

Often times too, the alarmists have an economic benefit <cough> Al Gore <cough>

yeah until he and Mrs. Ex-Heinz move out of their mansion he is selling Prius's in a Hummer. while a good chunk of the other side are selling and driving SUVs saying SUVs never hurt anyone. lots of reason to be critical of both sides.

 

[Minibull]

my problem are the alarmists. Right or wrong they need to come up with real ways to deal with the issue. imo they are too busy saying "the sky is falling the sky is falling" and not enough time getting out of the way/fixing the problem/figuring out how to. and no, the carbon tax/cap'n'trade would not be fixing the problem. if what they say is true, the carbon tax isn't fixing the problem it is just passing on responsibility to someone else.

There is some merit to this. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to point out problems rather than solve them. And a lot of scientists tend to want fixes NOW, no matter what.

I think everyone agrees that climate change is a natural phenomena. Many climate scientists believe that man made pollution is increasing this change and have data to back it up. While the carbon tax/cap would slow down the growth a little, I think the many tons of carbon and pollutants other countries put out (I.e., China) far exceeds ours. It's hard to talk climate change with a country willing to dump toxic pollutants in their own poor neighborhoods.

 

[LouderVol]

There is some merit to this. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to point out problems rather than solve them. And a lot of scientists tend to want fixes NOW, no matter what.

I think everyone agrees that climate change is a natural phenomena. Many climate scientists believe that man made pollution is increasing this change and have data to back it up. While the carbon tax/cap would slow down the growth a little, I think the many tons of carbon and pollutants other countries put out (I.e., China) far exceeds ours. It's hard to talk climate change with a country willing to dump toxic pollutants in their own poor neighborhoods.

agreed, as far as China goes. Call it the moral high ground if you want, but it would be a lot easier if we removed the 2x4 from our own eye before dealing with someone else's. (getting biblical). basically China has said they don't want to figure it out (the science). we figure it out and we can start exporting our expertise in that field, consider it a technology if you will. china then gets to mass produce while having no real understanding of how it works or how to improve upon it. (generalizing a bit there). and there are 'quick fixes' out there, it just takes a lot of regulation (which we don't need more of) and a lot of cooperation and money (which we don't have) and after it gets settled 5-10 years (a pipe dream) the regulation goes away (which never happens). our desires of freedom and personal choice have ensured that America is way too unwieldy and can't get out of its own way. China if they put their mind to it could 'fix' their country by next year, we couldn't get the Senate to meet to consider a bill in a year.

 

[volinbham]

There is some merit to this. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to point out problems rather than solve them. And a lot of scientists tend to want fixes NOW, no matter what.

I think everyone agrees that climate change is a natural phenomena. Many climate scientists believe that man made pollution is increasing this change and have data to back it up. While the carbon tax/cap would slow down the growth a little, I think the many tons of carbon and pollutants other countries put out (I.e., China) far exceeds ours. It's hard to talk climate change with a country willing to dump toxic pollutants in their own poor neighborhoods.

I'll add that climate scientists are not the source of solutions. They can and have documented the impact of CO2 on the climate. If the solution is reduce CO2 then that is probably another set of scientists to figure that one out.

My problem comes in when we expect a climate scientist (or look to them) to understand how policy changes will impact us. This problem is fraught with externalities. Changing this changes that yet we frequently don't see the full and thorough cost/benefit analysis or at least an honest discussion of the short term real costs that some people will face.

For example, in a recent (past 5 years or so) EPA mandate related to coal they presented data about how many children (in the 20,000 range IIRC) would ultimately benefit. Awww, do it for the children. However, the did NO ANALYSIS of economic impact on coal producing areas including how loss or reduction of income and employment impact would impact children in those areas.

Policy is difficult, policy is messy and unfortunately policy is often crafted by those who stand to gain from the new regulatory regime (look to the EPA practice of "friendly lawsuits" whereby there's a nod and wink between regulators and environmental groups resulting in settlements with the environmental groups).

I don't know the answer but there is plenty of misinformation floating on both sides of this issue.

 

[Mtntrout]

In the billions of years this planet has existed the climate has been gradually changing. It gets hotter...it gets colder.... You'll get no argument from most on climate change.
Till you add the politics of "man made climate change". When anyone disagrees bart and his groupies the labels get broken out. I find it hard to take anyone seriously that calls everyone who disagrees a denyer.

Let me rephrase for you: What would you need to see to be convinced humans are a driving force behind climate change?


I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change. No factually based position is ever taken, and thus there is no way to properly evaluate the position. So I ask: what would you need to see to accept anthropogenic climate change?

 

[LouderVol]

I'll add that climate scientists are not the source of solutions. They can and have documented the impact of CO2 on the climate. If the solution is reduce CO2 then that is probably another set of scientists to figure that one out.

My problem comes in when we expect a climate scientist (or look to them) to understand how policy changes will impact us. This problem is fraught with externalities. Changing this changes that yet we frequently don't see the full and thorough cost/benefit analysis or at least an honest discussion of the short term real costs that some people will face.

For example, in a recent (past 5 years or so) EPA mandate related to coal they presented data about how many children (in the 20,000 range IIRC) would ultimately benefit. Awww, do it for the children. However, the did NO ANALYSIS of economic impact on coal producing areas including how loss or reduction of income and employment impact would impact children in those areas.

Policy is difficult, policy is messy and unfortunately policy is often crafted by those who stand to gain from the new regulatory regime (look to the EPA practice of "friendly lawsuits" whereby there's a nod and wink between regulators and environmental groups resulting in settlements with the environmental groups).

I don't know the answer but there is plenty of misinformation floating on both sides of this issue.

yes, if these scientists are or people funding them actually want to save the world they should be looking long term and working in groups that can do something. the scientists study the problem and present solutions. the engineers get the solution and make it real. anything less it set up for failure, simply because it is not set up to succeed. i guess that is part of my definition of alarmism vs realism and thus my part of my problem with them.

 

[govols/cc]

Let me rephrase for you: What would you need to see to be convinced humans are a driving force behind climate change?


I find it funny how the rhetoric shifts in these kind of conversations. One moment there is no climate change, the next it is just not caused by people, the next it is just not that big of a deal, then back to there is no climate change. No factually based position is ever taken, and thus there is no way to properly evaluate the position. So I ask: what would you need to see to accept anthropogenic climate change?

I find it funny record highs and lows and all weather somehow supports man made climate change.

 

[Mtntrout]

If the weather now was so extreme since we have been pumping so much CO2 since 1970 then wouldn't hurricane strength be increasing drastically?

Not necessarily. It is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Also, keep in mind we in the US tend to only focus on storms that affect us. The Western Pacific has been experiencing massive hurricanes (they call them typhoons and tropical cyclones) while things have been pretty quiet in the Caribbean and tropical Atlantic.

 

[Mtntrout]

I find it funny record highs and lows and all weather somehow supports man made climate change.

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others: what would you need to see in order to accept climate change (driven by humans) is real?

 

[govols/cc]

Maybe everyone should open their windows and crank up the AC.