Tackling climate change ?

[flogger]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

 

[Steve Case]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

The notion that a warmer, greener world with more rain, more arable
land constitutes the existential crisis of our time, is testimony to the
greatest propaganda triumph ever.

Besides that, the polar bears are still here.

OK, that's all been posted before, there's only so many arguments that
can be made.

 

[charliebrown]

The notion that a warmer, greener world with more rain, more arable
land constitutes the existential crisis of our time, is testimony to the
greatest propaganda triumph ever.

Besides that, the polar bears are still here.

OK, that's all been posted before, there's only so many arguments that
can be made.

Accept and profit from the greatest propaganda triumph!!! That is what the rich liberals do.

 

[tshade]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

Sorry-----every reputable scientist KNOWS there is a danger with Climate Change caused by mankind. To deny climate change is to put yourself in the same category with those who deny evolution.

 

[flogger]

So in case I missed it ......when was 'every reputable scientist' ever asked what they actually thought ....... or are the only 'reputable' ones the ones making a decent living from parroting this political narrative

 

[expat_panama]

Sorry-----every reputable scientist KNOWS there is a danger with Climate Change caused by mankind. To deny climate change is to put yourself in the same category with those who deny evolution.

This may be unfair as ur the only pro-crisis person here, but somehow I'd have thought --given the fact that both sides have their own gang of "reputable" scientists-- that the evidence should speak for itself. So. What's the average global temp now & how does it compare to temps over the past few tens of thousands of years?

Anyone know?

 

[watsup]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

Denier talking points.

 

[watsup]

The notion that a warmer, greener world with more rain, more arable
land constitutes the existential crisis of our time, is testimony to the
greatest propaganda triumph ever.

Besides that, the polar bears are still here.

OK, that's all been posted before, there's only so many arguments that
can be made.

Recycled post/denier talking points.

 

[watsup]

So in case I missed it ......when was 'every reputable scientist' ever asked what they actually thought ....... or are the only 'reputable' ones the ones making a decent living from parroting this political narrative

Repetitive denier talking points.

 

[longview]

Sorry-----every reputable scientist KNOWS there is a danger with Climate Change caused by mankind. To deny climate change is to put yourself in the same category with those who deny evolution.

What every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century,
and they think Human activity is likely involved.
These are the two main points of the scientific consensus on climate change, from NASA.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Note: No agreement on danger, just it has warmed, and Human activity is likely involved.

 

[expat_panama]

What every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century,
and they think Human activity is likely involved.
These are the two main points of the scientific consensus on climate change, from NASA.
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate Is Warming

Note: No agreement on danger, just it has warmed, and Human activity is likely involved.

That first part "...every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century..." really intrigues me.

For the life of me I've never been able to find any kind of consensus as to what the "average global temperature" is, or even how the "average globe" itself is defined. Like the total mass of the earth is 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (note the accuracy to five significant figures) so that would mean if the greenhouse was 100% effective and every single photon reaching the earth was absorbed instantly then it would take about ten thousand years for the average global temp of the earth to go up by just one degree C.

It just doesn't make any sense to say the globe has come up what, 2C in 100 years?

 

[longview]

That first part "...every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century..." really intrigues me.

For the life of me I've never been able to find any kind of consensus as to what the "average global temperature" is, or even how the "average globe" itself is defined. Like the total mass of the earth is 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (note the accuracy to five significant figures) so that would mean if the greenhouse was 100% effective and every single photon reaching the earth was absorbed instantly then it would take about ten thousand years for the average global temp of the earth to go up by just one degree C.

It just doesn't make any sense to say the globe has come up what, 2C in 100 years?

I think that the "it has warmed" is not qualified with a number, so they are not agreeing how much it has warmed,
only that average temperatures are warmer than a century ago. The plant hardiness zones have expanded,
so it is reasonable to assume it has actually warmed.
The how much it has warmed is a much broader question.

 

[watsup]

That first part "...every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century..." really intrigues me.

For the life of me I've never been able to find any kind of consensus as to what the "average global temperature" is, or even how the "average globe" itself is defined. Like the total mass of the earth is 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (note the accuracy to five significant figures) so that would mean if the greenhouse was 100% effective and every single photon reaching the earth was absorbed instantly then it would take about ten thousand years for the average global temp of the earth to go up by just one degree C.

It just doesn't make any sense to say the globe has come up what, 2C in 100 years?

Have you studied the heat-trapping ability of CO2? Climate scientists have.

 

[expat_panama]

Have you studied the heat-trapping ability of CO2? Climate scientists have.

Well good for them, I hope they're happy w/ all the grant money they scarfed up.

Meanwhile what I said was--

That first part "...every reputable scientist KNOWS, is that the average global temperature have increased over the last century..." really intrigues me.

For the life of me I've never been able to find any kind of consensus as to what the "average global temperature" is, or even how the "average globe" itself is defined. Like the total mass of the earth is 5.9722×10²⁴ kg (note the accuracy to five significant figures) so that would mean if the greenhouse was 100% effective and every single photon reaching the earth was absorbed instantly then it would take about ten thousand years for the average global temp of the earth to go up by just one degree C.

It just doesn't make any sense to say the globe has come up what, 2C in 100 years?

--and I'll repeat just this once that if that "heat trapping ability" was 100% the entire globe would need 10,000 years to rise 1C. It's simply a matter of looking at the specific heat of earth's matter, looking at the 200 terra watts of energy coming in, and getting the 10,000 years.

We're not getting anywhere here.

 

[watsup]

Well good for them, I hope they're happy w/ all the grant money they scarfed up.

Meanwhile what I said was--

--and I'll repeat just this once that if that "heat trapping ability" was 100% the entire globe would need 10,000 years to rise 1C. It's simply a matter of looking at the specific heat of earth's matter, looking at the 200 terra watts of energy coming in, and getting the 10,000 years.

We're not getting anywhere here.

You're just the latest of the deniers to come here with your own little theory as to why AGW can't possibly be happening, and it has all the merit of the theories of every ether denier, which is to say NONE. Do you have any actual scientific sources to back up your statements? Guess not, or you would have included them.
BTW, the term "it's simply a matter of" is a "tell" phrase that yet another simplistic theory with no actual scientific merit will follow. It always does.

 

[expat_panama]

You're just the latest of the deniers...

--and so it goes.

Meanwhile, if anyone here maybe lurking happens to have a handle on what the current global temp is --along w/ some kind of coherent methodology I'd really like to know. Seriously.

 

[longview]

--and so it goes.

Meanwhile, if anyone here maybe lurking happens to have a handle on what the current global temp is --along w/ some kind of coherent methodology I'd really like to know. Seriously.

I think the best we can hope for for an average global temperature is the RSS data set.
RSS
It is a somewhat unbiased mapping of an atmospheric variable that can be correlated to temperature.

 

[watsup]

--and so it goes.

Meanwhile, if anyone here maybe lurking happens to have a handle on what the current global temp is --along w/ some kind of coherent methodology I'd really like to know. Seriously.

What we do know is that excess human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere since the onset of the Industrial Revolution holds heat. That is called “global warming” and is an absolute fact at this point.

 

[flogger]

This may be unfair as ur the only pro-crisis person here, but somehow I'd have thought --given the fact that both sides have their own gang of "reputable" scientists-- that the evidence should speak for itself. So. What's the average global temp now & how does it compare to temps over the past few tens of thousands of years?

Anyone know?

If you check the ice core record from both poles over the last 4000 years (Kobashi 2011) we are slap bang in the middle of temperature variations over that period and well within normal natural variation in both level and rate of change

All the rest is just about politics money fear and control

 

[watsup]

If you check the ice core record from both poles over the last 4000 years (Kobashi 2011) we are slap bang in the middle of temperature variations over that period and well within normal natural variation in both level and rate of change

All the rest is just about politics money fear and control

What about the relatively sudden increase in temperature as a result of human-produced CO2? You don’t seem to want to answer that question, but dance all around it. As above.
All you and the other right wingers are about is political (not scientific) denial of obvious facts. What do you fear? The truth?

 

[Hafnium1979]

The notion that a warmer, greener world with more rain, more arable
land constitutes the existential crisis of our time, is testimony to the
greatest propaganda triumph ever.

Besides that, the polar bears are still here.

OK, that's all been posted before, there's only so many arguments that
can be made.

Yes, only so many. And when people fail to understand both science and logic they cannot be reasoned with. These people will forever be confused by the need to address the climate. Until, of course, they can't afford vegetables at the grocery store then they'll whine and moan and continue to be confused.

Then when climate refugess move into their towns because the coastal cities are flooding they will whine and cry about too many people. They will continue to be confused.

And when interesting tropical disease become far more prevalent in their formerly safe little enclaves they will clutch their pearls and shout to heaven for an answer and they will continue to be confused.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Sorry-----every reputable scientist KNOWS there is a danger with Climate Change caused by mankind. To deny climate change is to put yourself in the same category with those who deny evolution.

It does have some interesting parallels. Core among them is a fundamental lack of understanding of even basic science.

 

[Hafnium1979]

So in case I missed it ......when was 'every reputable scientist' ever asked what they actually thought ....... or are the only 'reputable' ones the ones making a decent living from parroting this political narrative

You have probably never taken a statistics course so let me help you. In basically all of science we measure a subset of the larger population. We call this a SAMPLE. If we select the sample correctly it will characterize the larger population. This is used even in the sciences you actually believe in, so you will not be surprised to know that sampling of scientific consensus on climate change has been done a NUMBER of times using different methods.

Interestingly enough they ALWAYS come around to about 95-97% agreement on AGW.

And interestingly so, almost every single major scientific organization has a statement on climate change which affirms that it is a likely real issue worth addressing.

Now I know you will be sorely tempted to demand EVERY MEMBER OF A POPULATION be questioned, but that's only because you don't understand even basic science or statistics or sampling. That's not a big deal, few people are able to handle all of that. You are just one more person who lacks the proper education.

WISDOM, however, is something that is perfectly within your grasp and wisdom tells you you might want to limit what you talk about to things you actually understand.

 

[tshade]

It does have some interesting parallels. Core among them is a fundamental lack of understanding of even basic science.

i.e. = Trumpers

 

[Exquisitor]

Its a phrase politicians love using but what does it actually mean ?

What proof is there that the climate needs 'tackled' ? And if it were remotely possible to do so what temperature target would be the right one and why would it be better than what we have today ?

Why would cooler be better ? It certainly never was in the past so why would it be now given shorter growing seasons and lower crop yields as a consequence ? Surely in a planet with an ever growing population the opposite would be true .... unless you hate humans of course ?

I just have to ask the age old question, "Do you want it sunny and warm tomorrow, or cold and wet?"