Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are my thoughts:
- The climate has been changing for millions of years....where I live used to be covered in ice (Actually it is right now thanks to a cold front)
- I believe mankind has impacted the climate with burning fossil fuels
- So far, the impacts of the changes have been mostly positive (warmer is better)
- The US is a major global polluter. However, if we didn't exist, it would only be a minor impact to human caused climate change
- I think we should all endeavor to do your part to minimize carbon emissions until a global agreed solution can be found
I think climate change theory is a pretty decent try but not tested/proven. Given the complex nature of our nature, I don't think I can reach a conclusion on whether the theory is true or false with very high confidence.
Climate change has been detected, statisitcally, with a high degree of confidence for many locations. The idea of global climate change doesn't seem very relevant to me, as I don't live "on the globe". I live in a place.
If we decide to make the effort it would take to make a change (Google what scientists think would happen if man started contributing zero CO2 tomorrow), it would devastate our economy to the point that we'd be starving just like the Venezuelans. So.... just how much do we want to attempt 'for our children'?
What nonsense. It wont devastate our economy. Most predictions put it as a small % of lowered growth, not a reversal or devastation.
We can do a TON on just the low end. Up the tax benefit for buying electric cars. invest more in cleaner energy. etc. Remove the unnecessary red tape for building nuclear plants. None of thats going to bankrupt us.
I'm no scientist, just a lowly engineer. But I can appreciate this thread... great discussion until it was dropped into the P&OC cesspool
It's not hard to estimate how much CO2 we humans are directly dumping into the atmosphere- at an unprecedented rate. We can compare that to *measured* increases in atmospheric CO2. We know that this traps more heat in the atmosphere. Wavelengths that pass through or are absorbed by CO2- this is basic physics and it's not up for debate.
So IMO you have to be straight-up dishonest (or too ignorant to have a valid opinion) to claim that we're not affecting climate with some degree of MMGW.
But how significant is that effect? What are the consequences in the short term and long term? Is MMGW a catastrophe or a net benefit? I'm not equipped to give an informed and honest answer to those questions, and that's true for 99% of the public and our politicians.
Then the questions becomes: What if anything should be done about MMGW?
I have no reason to believe that current proposals are anything but symbolic steps. In a fantastic scenario where the U.S. and Europe cut greenhouse gas emissions by half... it really accomplishes very little unless China, India, and Africa do the same. And considering the state of economic development in much of the world, they will *not* be on board with such measures any time soon. Likely not in any of our lifetimes.
So IMO, it doesn't really matter much what our politicians do. Whatever the effects of man-made climate change will be... it's a done deal. There really doesn't exist much 'choice' here- it's not going to be stopped no matter what we 'choose'. We're strapped in on this ride, and we will adapt as we go
I'm no scientist, just a lowly engineer. But I can appreciate this thread... great discussion until it was dropped into the P&OC cesspool
It's not hard to estimate how much CO2 we humans are directly dumping into the atmosphere- at an unprecedented rate. We can compare that to *measured* increases in atmospheric CO2. We know that this traps more heat in the atmosphere. Wavelengths that pass through or are absorbed by CO2- this is basic physics and it's not up for debate.
So IMO you have to be straight-up dishonest (or too ignorant to have a valid opinion) to claim that we're not affecting climate with some degree of MMGW.
But how significant is that effect? What are the consequences in the short term and long term? Is MMGW a catastrophe or a net benefit? I'm not equipped to give an informed and honest answer to those questions, and that's true for 99% of the public and our politicians.
Then the questions becomes: What if anything should be done about MMGW?
I have no reason to believe that current proposals are anything but symbolic steps. In a fantastic scenario where the U.S. and Europe cut greenhouse gas emissions by half... it really accomplishes very little unless China, India, and Africa do the same. And considering the state of economic development in much of the world, they will *not* be on board with such measures any time soon. Likely not in any of our lifetimes.
So IMO, it doesn't really matter much what our politicians do. Whatever the effects of man-made climate change will be... it's a done deal. There really doesn't exist much 'choice' here- it's not going to be stopped no matter what we 'choose'. We're strapped in on this ride, and we will adapt as we go
Before this thread goes south, I don't know how much climate change is provable. I choose not to take the word of talk show hosts, partisan political leaders or random posters on internet forums though.
I will say that it's patently silly to think you can put billions of people n earth with all their industry and waste and cutting down trees and NOT think that the climate is going to change for the worse.
3.... 2... 1.... until someone comes in and says "global warming" can't be real since it's -20 where they are today.
I sure wish people would get educated about Climate CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING and NOT compare it to a "Weather Event" in some specific area~~ To do so, only means your family/children/grandchildren will be left dealing with the denied AFFECTS you denied and will directly affect them !! Narcissism and denial of facts will be remembered by all those you leave behind to deal with...
Below are a few links and a video that naysayers should read and view.. Otherwise.. Their false narratives 9 that have been spread for decades by Fossil Fuel Industry) will be considered rather un-EDUCATED and IGNORANT!
To deny FACTUAL evidence done over many decades by scientific society pretty well tells the tale when it comes to denials personalities because of propagandized LIE by BIG money Industry!!
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Climate_vs_Weather
Definition snippet~~ Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere in a region and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variations, whereas climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval. They are both used interchangeably sometimes but differ in terms of the length of time they measure and what trends affect them.
Weather is the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. In popular usage, climate represents the synthesis of weather; more formally, it is the weather of a locality averaged over some period (usually 30 years), plus statistics of weather extremes.
What nonsense. It wont devastate our economy. Most predictions put it as a small % of lowered growth, not a reversal or devastation.
We can do a TON on just the low end. Up the tax benefit for buying electric cars. invest more in cleaner energy. etc. Remove the unnecessary red tape for building nuclear plants. None of thats going to bankrupt us.
It isn't nonsense at all, if we're talking about trying to change the current trend, and assuming we agree on warming being catastrophic. The United States is but one of the many countries around the world. In order for us to even think we might make a difference, we would have to make very extreme changes, since we can't force a change on any other nation. Reducing our emissions is great, I'm not arguing that, but we're talking about making a noticeable difference - "doing something" that could actually have an impact. Those changes would mean eliminating nearly all of our production, and at the same time, ending our ability to compete in a global market. Effectively removing ourselves from the market would mean crippling our economy.
I think there are several possibilities(very obvious, hopefully, we can find some common ground here).
1. The natural forces are not currently changing the climate significantly. ...
2. The natural forces are also warming up the planet....
3. The natural forces are cooling the planet but humans are warming up the planet.
4. The natural forces are warming up the planet but humans are cooling the planet....
One scheme for assessing that various possibilities is to consider time-scales. Sometimes nature moves quickly; a massive volcano erupts, pumping soot into the atmosphere that blocks/reflects sunlight, cooling the earth. Or, in even more devastating way, a massive meteor strike. But these rapid events are easily observable. If they're absent, nature moves slowly - over thousand (or more) years. So, if there's no meteor-hit and no volcano and so forth, and yet, the global aggregate of temperature does happen to change quickly, we can probably ascribe that change to man-made causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical_Thinker
...Most of us will be dead by then, so what's the point? People only care about what's happening right now - me included. ...
As a scientist (but not a climatologist), I'm deeply concerned about my publications being read and cited in posterity. I am interested, in an abstract but deep way, what happens centuries and millennia after my death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical_Thinker
I do agree it's happening. But I do NOT believe that anything can be done about it, and we shouldn't even think about trying. Just accept it - just like we accept we're all gonna die at some point.
That is one possible option. But it's unclear that our descendants will be able to adapt. They might, or they might not. They might just go extinct. How do we feel about that possibility in the present? Are we willing to accept it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical_Thinker
Proudly childless here. I'm 52, which means I'll probably punch my ticket sometime in the 2050's. The people in 2100 will have tech that we haven't dreamed of yet, and they'll have brand-new frontiers to settle in places like Greenland and Antarctica after the ice melts.
I'm also proudly and redoubtably child-free, because I dislike the company of children, and don't care for the responsibility of parenthood. But that doesn't preclude caring about what happens to humanity as a whole, whether that's today's adults, today's children, or children who won't be born until thousands of years in the future.
I make living by doing scientific research, but not related to atmospheric science.
Are weather patterns evolving ? Yes. They always have.
If your question is whether it is a man made phenomenon, ask yourself this question : can the people who are unable to accurately forecast the next day's local weather, explain infinitely more complex global weather patterns over decades, and give predictions until 2050 ?
It isn't nonsense at all, if we're talking about trying to change the current trend, and assuming we agree on warming being catastrophic. The United States is but one of the many countries around the world. In order for us to even think we might make a difference, we would have to make very extreme changes, since we can't force a change on any other nation. Reducing our emissions is great, I'm not arguing that, but we're talking about making a noticeable difference - "doing something" that could actually have an impact. Those changes would mean eliminating nearly all of our production, and at the same time, ending our ability to compete in a global market. Effectively removing ourselves from the market would mean crippling our economy.
To add to this, there was a recent article in NY Magazine by David Wallace-Wells, a "climate columnist", who is firmly in the 'we must do something' camp. He warns that even a warming of 2 degrees could be catastrophic - calls it 'genocide', and talks about what needs to be done to keep warming to 2 degrees, rather than three or four. He falls right in line with the IPCC and its beliefs, and thinks that a carbon tax of $35 - $229 per ton of CO2 wouldn't be enough to do the job. He states, "On your chalkboard, you can draw whatever carbon-emissions curve you'd like, but keeping the world safely under two degrees by conventional decarbonization alone probably means policies like an immediate ban on all new internal-combustion engines and much of the world's heavy industry being suddenly shuttered or redirected by fiat."
This is what the climate alarmists are proposing, or are at least admitting would need to be done. Tell me how that isn't going to devastate our economy. So, of course, it won't come to that because no one in this country is willing to take those steps. All I want to see is the climate change die-hards stopping this ridiculous assertion that those of us who are trying to be more realistic and pragmatic are "science deniers" who hate their grandchildren.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
