Climate Change is here and man made

[KS55]

In other words, you somehow know more than scientific experts - and based on some sort of unscientific sentiment along these lines - feel confident that science is wrong.

"Still waiting for You to quote me denying climate change."
Here you go, quoting you:

"I am interested in the idea, mooted by many now, that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."
===
You, like Joe Rogan and my brother position yourself as a neutral observer. Unsure of what's right. And you tune into many right leaning webcasts/podcasts/newscasts and so forth. And from these popular opinion posts/podcasts from the likes of Joe Rogan - you hear, time and again, pushback against uncontroverted science.

And thus you conclude "that the analysis of the mechanisms of climate change and the proffered solutions are somewhat doubtful."

Whereas in fact - no doubt whatsoever among credible scientists exists. This isn't moral superiority on my part - it's simply a deference towards those who are expert in these matters and who have no political agenda in their views.

Since you insist upon contradicting the best scientific evidence to date, here's a thought... collect your evidence, write a paper, and submit it to any leading scientific journal for peer review - if it passes it will be published. Or have someone do this on your behalf. Hell, if your ideas were the least bit credible, you'd need take no action - some scientist would have acted this way in line with your beliefs.
===
>> You need to take off your morally superior specs and do a spot of listening
Huh? I do not claim morality. At all. How on earth did morality enter this discussion?

I'm simply interest in truth.

And your ideas have no basis in truth given the current scientific consensus.
===
I'll go further - it's outright hubris that you somehow know more than scientists on any topic whatsoever that you are not personally an expert.

FFS THEY ARE NOT MY IDEAS!!!! Seriously, can you not distinguish between a discussion of some scientist's views and the person discussing them? I have written in the past about Plato's "forms" that does not mean I agree with him.

 

[mancity1]

And yet you're a climate change skeptic?

Climate change is the biggest threat to global human well being. Should we take no action, weather will become ever more extreme - flooding, fires, hurricanes and tornadoes. Far, far worse than 10 years ago.

And then there's sea level rise. Ice caps will melt, and as temperature rises, water will slightly expand as a mater of chemistry.

Sea level rise is going to have a major economic impact on most nations - as they struggle to either relocate coastal cities inland - or try to construct things aimed at countering rising waters.

I shouldn't interject blue because he can argue his stance much better than I can but its clear from his many posts he is not a climate change denier.

its looking and the what and how and why that he points to and in some cases and with sound reason some of the solutions proposed need far more scrutiny and analysis and scientific research before drawing any common sense responses both short and long term and how those responses impact on all the things that we believe are important to humanity and should pursue.

Just on a couple of your points there is no scientific causal link between flooding , fire and extreme weather events and the climate in particular the average long term temperature of the earth over its long journey and journey to come.

The earth is a relatively placid beast compared to some of our other planets in the solar system.

these events in there frequency and intensity have been occurring and varying in frequency and intensity from decade to decade century to century long before the industrial revolution and after , they are not some punishment on the earth from the troposphere that is switched on and off depending on our desire to emit CO2 above " desired levels ".

Our worst bush fires in Australia and some of our hottest whether in recent times occurred nearly 100 years ago for a variety of reasons when we a much smaller population emitting far less Co2 than we do now.

the CBD in Melbourne was under 4 feet of water in 1972 and has experienced a down poor of that proportion since.

Now I understand isolated weather events have little to do with climate and don't demonstrate at all that the earth is not heating up as such it has by over 1.0 degree in recent times relatively speaking but I just wish to point out that correlation and causal are not always one and the same in fact often that are not.

Remember some of what is now inland Britain was under water a few thousand years ago long before the advent of fossil fuels.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

@KS55 - follow the science.

I - nor you - can ever hope to be expert on these matters. Nor can Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or any other such demagogue.

So what can we do? Whom do we trust? How do we decide? Follow the actual science.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

@mancity1
With respect - you're also in the right-wing echo chamber that KS55 is in; albeit less so.

Climate change is real - it's a huge problem - we need to take immediate action - and we, as a society can mitigate some of the worst possible outcomes if we act now. This is basically uncontroverted among experts.

Controversially, we may or may not be able to rely upon other nations to act accordingly - e.g., China, India; even so, should that alone deter us from doing our best to mitigate the effects of devastating climate change?

For another perspective, listen to CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS. That's an echo chamber too - left leaning - but perhaps this will balance out your right-leaning perspective.

And from there - well, it's hard - enroll in a college course about meteorology I guess? Or somehow ask a professor in your city about this?

It's damn hard to tell what scientific opinion is from what's not.

Me?... I trust in the mainstream media. Fox is not trustworthy in it's opinion segments - but listen to Chris Wallace's newscasts on Fox. That's news.

 

[KS55]

@KS55 - follow the science.

I - nor you - can ever hope to be expert on these matters. Nor can Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or any other such demagogue.

So what can we do? Whom do we trust? How do we decide? Follow the actual science.

Read @mancity1 at #1302 para 2 and you will find, not from me, a sensible representation of my posts and you will see that following the science is exactly what I am doing, but ALL of it, not just the bit you agree with! The people you are saying are fact free are themselves distinguished scientists and I have posted refs to them. Read some.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Read @mancity1 at #1302 para 2 and you will find, not from me, a sensible representation of my posts and you will see that following the science is exactly what I am doing, but ALL of it, not just the bit you agree with! The people you are saying are fact free are themselves distinguished scientists and I have posted refs to them. Read some.

Here's a thought.

Please quote from any scientifically respected journal - just one - anything at all in support of your opinions.

I'm not talking about proposed solutions to climate change - because these involve economics, human behavior and many other factors which we cannot predict with any accuracy and are thus 100% in the realm of debate...

I'm talking instead about the fact that climate change is real, it's caused by mankind, and that mankind is capable of mitigating the worst outcomes if we act aggressively and immediately towards this goal.

If you agree with this last paragraph - then apologies - I've misunderstood you.

 

[mancity1]

FFS THEY ARE NOT MY IDEAS!!!! Seriously, can you not distinguish between a discussion of some scientist's views and the person discussing them? I have written in the past about Plato's "forms" that does not mean I agree with him.

I still think he thinks you are a denier (LOL).

I know the matter has little relevance to the discussion of climate warming ( I think the term climate change doesn't do justice to the climate (LOL)) but I recall many leading IT experts saying Y2K at least in my country was going to shut down the transport system , severely impact loads of equipment that was date related and the list went on I was paid some money albeit not a king ransom but in my view an over valued amount to implement a response to minimise damage on behalf of Village Road Show and its suppliers and distributers.

I got the feeling my work was a complete waste of time after checking a couple of pieces of equipment used in cinemas and the like at the time and relayed that to my coordinator but they kept me on for two years and if I was true to my word I could have left after a few weeks and it would have made no difference to the eventual outcomes.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I still think he thinks you are a denier (LOL).

I know the matter has little relevance to the discussion of climate warming ...

@mancity 1
RE thinking that KS55 is a denier - yeah, I think so. Maybe I'm wrong. I've allowed for this possibility in my latest post.

RE y2k - numerous experts in computer science facing a complete unknown with no evidence one way or another thought the worst and were dead wrong. Experts are sometimes wrong especially in such circumstances with little or nothing to go on.

Whereas climate change has been studied for decades, and over time, more and more sophisticated climate models have been developed with ever increasing fidelity to real-world outcomes. If anything, current models are a bit too reluctant to predict bad outcomes - although severe weather was predicted by current models, the actually occuring weather has been even more severe than predicted by most models.

 

[mancity1]

@mancity1
With respect - you're also in the right-wing echo chamber that KS55 is in; albeit less so.

Climate change is real - it's a huge problem - we need to take immediate action - and we, as a society can mitigate some of the worst possible outcomes if we act now. This is basically uncontroverted among experts.

Controversially, we may or may not be able to rely upon other nations to act accordingly - e.g., China, India; even so, should that alone deter us from doing our best to mitigate the effects of devastating climate change?

For another perspective, listen to CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS. That's an echo chamber too - left leaning - but perhaps this will balance out your right-leaning perspective.

And from there - well, it's hard - enroll in a college course about meteorology I guess? Or somehow ask a professor in your city about this?

It's damn hard to tell what scientific opinion is from what's not.

Me?... I trust in the mainstream media. Fox is not trustworthy in it's opinion segments - but listen to Chris Wallace's newscasts on Fox. That's news.

I prefer to read journals and draw from the views of a range of climatologists.

I had not seen the post from KS55 before so I was interested to look at the 96 minute video which he posted and found it most enjoyable and informative and some of the views on the video challenged some of my long held views which I found both enlightening and worthwhile.

I am certainly not in any chamber least of all right wing but if you wish to put in that box I won't spend too much time changing your view which it appears you state as fact.

I am not a climate change denier but I am perhaps a bit like KS55 interested in as I said drawing on views regarding climate warming and the various responses that have been implemented to date and will continue long after we are dust in the wind.

I think you suggest that CNN and ABC leaning left are more worthy to gain a perspective on the " urgency " of a response than other networks which perhaps as you suggest are more right leaning because as you allude to they are not trustworthy.

I am not interested in the politics so much or whether its a left leaning perspective or some other I am more interested in the response and the pros and cons of the response and what it means for me and my family first and the wider community and humanity ( pardon me for being selfish ) but that includes you as well.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I prefer to read journals and draw from the views of a range of climatologists.

I had not seen the post from KS55 before so I was interested to look at the 96 minute video which he posted and found it most enjoyable and informative and some of the views on the video challenged some of my long held views which I found both enlightening and worthwhile.

I am certainly not in any chamber least of all right wing but if you wish to put in that box I won't spend too much time changing your view which it appears you state as fact.

I am not a climate change denier but I am perhaps a bit like KS55 interested in as I said drawing on views regarding climate warming and the various responses that have been implemented to date and will continue long after we are dust in the wind.

I think you suggest that CNN and ABC leaning left are more worthy to gain a perspective on the " urgency " of a response than other networks which perhaps as you suggest are more right leaning because as you allude to they are not trustworthy.

I am not interested in the politics so much or whether its a left leaning perspective or some other I am more interested in the response and the pros and cons of the response and what it means for me and my family first and the wider community and humanity ( pardon me for being selfish ) but that includes you as well.

Good post.

I suggest CNN/ABC as a counterbalance to the newsfeeds KS55 is consuming - and perhaps you too? CNN/ABC are left leaning for sure. No argument there.
===
My opinion on climate change - it's a huge, huge deal. Economically, politically, socially and environmentally.

Numerous cities are on the coast - and will be underwater if nothing is done. The economic and political impact form this alone is going to be huge.

As CO2 emissions increase, the climate warms and CO2 levels in our oceans increase. Although similar/higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere may have existed in the distant past - and life went on - the difference currently is that the change from pre-industrial age CO2 levels to that in a decade or so, are very large - and this change is occuring in a matter of decades.

Life is resilient and will adapt to change. But the pressure to adapt has mostly been gradual - whereas the large CO2 rise is sudden. It's not clear how many species may die because of this - unable to adapt in time.

And then there's some very alarming unknown variables - a large amount of methane is trapped in ice. Methane is roughly 30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If global temperatures rise enough, all methane trapped in ice will be released. If not mitigated somehow, this will prove catastrophic for civilization (at least) and for most life forms extant currently for sure.
===
As to mitigations...

Invest in green technology. But that alone won't suffice.

Better, safer nuclear fission- such technology either exists or is in the pipeline - is necessary.

As for nuclear fusion - forget about it in the short term. Nuclear fusion is at least 2 decades or more from being a viable source of energy.

 

[mancity1]

@mancity 1
RE thinking that KS55 is a denier - yeah, I think so. Maybe I'm wrong. I've allowed for this possibility in my latest post.

RE y2k - numerous experts in computer science facing a complete unknown with no evidence one way or another thought the worst and were dead wrong. Experts are sometimes wrong especially in such circumstances with little or nothing to go on.

Whereas climate change has been studied for decades, and over time, more and more sophisticated climate models have been developed with ever increasing fidelity to real-world outcomes. If anything, current models are a bit too reluctant to predict bad outcomes - although severe weather was predicted by current models, the actually occuring weather has been even more severe than predicted by most models.

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

could you pooint me in the direction of a 'proper earth scientist'?

you called?

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

@mancity1
RE: Y2K - YWK was a projected outcome by experts but with no data to back them up - they were wrong. But that's not surprising.

RE: Weather modeling - you seem to misunderstand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is a short-term prediction which is somewhat reliable for a short time frame based on satellite data and actual observations - 1 to 5 days out or so is perhaps the extent of very accurate, predictable weather.

RE: Climate Change - this isn't at all akin to the random factors of short term weather. This is a long term, averaged expectation of carefully modeled variables - and is much, much, much - more accurate than 10-day hence weather predictions. Weather predictions versus climate predictions are fundamentally different.

RE: COVID-19 spread - another very difficult problem to predict. Science can however point to the efficacy of wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination - whereas predicting the precise spread of the vaccine even knowing all variables such as vaccination/mask wearing/distancing apriori is going to be subject to a large variance.

>> the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.
Nobody understands the weather this well - no one. 30-day hence weather is basically unknown. Climate in the next 10 years however, is much more understood. Why? Because random variables which dramatically affect short term conditions (weather) - on average - even out over time - leading to much better long term predictions (climate).

 

[mancity1]

Good post.

I suggest CNN/ABC as a counterbalance to the newsfeeds KS55 is consuming - and perhaps you too? CNN/ABC are left leaning for sure. No argument there.
===
My opinion on climate change - it's a huge, huge deal. Economically, politically, socially and environmentally.

Numerous cities are on the coast - and will be underwater if nothing is done. The economic and political impact form this alone is going to be huge.

As CO2 emissions increase, the climate warms and CO2 levels in our oceans increase. Although similar/higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere may have existed in the distant past - and life went on - the difference currently is that the change from pre-industrial age CO2 levels to that in a decade or so, are very large - and this change is occuring in a matter of decades.

Life is resilient and will adapt to change. But the pressure to adapt has mostly been gradual - whereas the large CO2 rise is sudden. It's not clear how many species may die because of this - unable to adapt in time.

And then there's some very alarming unknown variables - a large amount of methane is trapped in ice. Methane is roughly 30 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If global temperatures rise enough, all methane trapped in ice will be released. If not mitigated somehow, this will prove catastrophic for civilization (at least) and for most life forms extant currently for sure.
===
As to mitigations...

Invest in green technology. But that alone won't suffice.

Better, safer nuclear fission- such technology either exists or is in the pipeline - is necessary.

As for nuclear fusion - forget about it in the short term. Nuclear fusion is at least 2 decades or more from being a viable source of energy.

Fair enough I think we do need a measured and common sense response but their are limits on what we can do and how effective a massive reduction of co2 and ch4 emission for example through technological development and eliminating fossil fuels for example from the energy mix that contribute around 25-30 per cent of all emissions each year will be on limiting the rise global temperature should it continue on its recent path.

its a pity we don't have two earths to see what eventuates but then again maybe we just don't realise where the other ones are yet.

 

[mancity1]

@mancity1
RE: Y2K was projected outcome by experts but with no data to back them up - they were wrong. But that's not surprising.

RE: Weather modeling - you seem to misunderstand the difference between weather and climate. Weather is a short-term prediction which is somewhat reliable for a short time frame based on satellite data and actual observations - 10 days out or so - very unpredictable.

RE: Climate Change - this isn't at all akin to the random factors of short term weather. This is a long term, averaged expectation of carefully modeled variables - and is much, much, much - more accurate than 10-day hence weather predictions. Weather predictions versus climate predictions are fundamentally different.

RE: COVID-19 spread - another very difficult problem to predict. Science can however point to the efficacy of wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination - whereas predicting the precise spread of the vaccine even knowing all variables such as vaccination/mask wearing/distancing apriori is going to be subject to a large variance.

>> the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.
Nobody understand the weather this well - no one.

Whereas scientists reliably predict climate trends - over years and years/decades - based on current models. Such trends may be somewhat overstated/understated - nonetheless predicted trends are accurate.

I know the difference blue it was just you discussed weather events in your post.

Most models look at climate over 30 years then 50 years the 100 year year and 200 year and 1000 year moving average.

The number of extreme events hasn't changed that much over the past 30 years to the previous I believe you will find.

Deaths per events on a rolling cycle of 40 years are down in I think you will find but this is partly due to a number of non climate related factors I admit.

I think the jury is out somewhat on massive migration death and destruction on a global scale as you alluded to from rising sea levels and extreme weather events within the next ten years if we carry on the path we have tread since 1990 say in the next ten years.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Fair enough I think we do need a measured and common sense response but their are limits on what we can do and how effective a massive reduction of co2 and ch4 emission for example through technological development and eliminating fossil fuels for example from the energy mix that contribute around 25-30 per cent of all emissions each year will be on limiting the rise global temperature should it continue on its recent path.

its a pity we don't have two earths to see what eventuates but then again maybe we just don't realise where the other ones are yet.

Yes - but if we're screwed based on climate models unless we as a society adapt massive change - and that's where we are by the way - then we need to adapt massive change and should other nations fail to do so - pressure them accordingly.

It's counterproductive to assume that other nations won't recognize the imperative for change and will not act as we do... moreover, it's not at all clear that green technology/nuclear fission is going to be more expensive than fossil fuel power generation.

 

[Barcon]

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

@mancity1
>> I think the jury is out somewhat on massive migration death and destruction on a global scale as you alluded to from rising sea levels and extreme weather events within the next ten years if we carry on the path we have tread since 1990 say in the next ten years.
===
Huh?

Look - here's a lesson from high school chemistry. It's called equilibrium.

We've pumped a bunch of CO2 into our atmosphere. We're nowhere near equilibrium. Even assuming that we produce no more new CO2, we're still not at equilibrium.

What does that mean?

Equilibrium temperature - due to the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 hasn't been reached. Temperatures will continue to rise.

Equilibrium concentration of CO2 in our oceans hasn't been reached. Acidification of our oceans will continue.

We've seen coral die offs because of this - and it will get worse. If plankton is adversely affected on a large scale - that's going to cause huge problems - the effect of rising ocean acidification on plankton is currently not well known.
===
So here we are. Looks like we're in huge trouble if we burn all the CO2 we can, ignoring climate change. Might work out OK though but with sea level rise and forced migration.

On the other hand, might result in the death of most life forms currently on earth if all ice melts and the methane trapped in ice is released (methane is about 30 times more potent than CO2 in terms of greenhouse gas effect) leading to run-away warming - with any luck not so bad as Venus where lead easily melts on Venus' surface due to extreme heat/pressure.

 

[KS55]

Those who knew a lot about dates and computerised systems and how the date impacted on their functionality knew long before Y2K that with some basic intervention much of the hype and much of it on the networks you alluded to overhyped in some cases ridiculously so and as I know a little about the subject matter having worked in IT in an insurance company throughout the 80's with a basic knowledge of programming knew it was overhyped.

There were many in IT and related and or impacted industries that knew it was overhyped and many took advantage of that so to speak.

Modelling for severe weather I suppose a noble cause and of some benefit to a range of industries and individuals throughout the world but like most models they rely on real data in smaller amounts of time scale.

Its not directly related of course but perhaps one should at least bear this in mind that the modelling for covid19 in the main has been woeful in terms of outcomes given the variable and unreliable intangible nature of humans and human activity and our knowledge of the virus itself and how it behaves.

So called experts in Australia for example were predicting that hard lockdowns would ensure little spread and no community transmission after 7 to 14 days even with the delta variant and failure to do so would result in tens of thousands of deaths in this country some predicting over 100k in death,

the weather you say well if you can tell me what it will be like in Melbourne in 30 days time for example I bow to your better judgment than mine.

I thought at first that you just had the wrong end of the stick, but now I'm sure you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I have wasted enough time already. In debating circles, misrepresentation is considered the lowest of the low, not just childish but dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. End.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I thought at first that you just had the wrong end of the stick, but now I'm sure you are deliberately misrepresenting me. I have wasted enough time already. In debating circles, misrepresentation is considered the lowest of the low, not just childish but dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. End.

Thanks for your adult response, welcoming debate; outlining your beliefs for future dialog or indeed - should we concur - for possible enthusiastic agreement. And especially for continuing to engage in debate - explaining our differences (where they exist) and agreeing on core beliefs otherwise.

You sir, are a tribute to us all!