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.