We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[Ren]

Why do you buy insurance? Just curious.

Why do you have smoke detectors in your home?

Why do you look both ways before crossing the street?

(BTW: I didn't bring up "environmentalist tears" to begin with! But I understand "details" and "technicalities" probably don't matter to the more "shallow" thinker.. )

I buy insurance to help manage risk because so many have accidents & personal catastrophes in their lives.
I have smoke detectors in my home because so many homes burn to the ground.
I look both ways before crossing the street because so many get hit by cars.

Are you trying to tell me that I need to buy climate crisis insurance because the Sun is destroying chunks of the planet and water from the polar ice caps are burying civilizations?

 

[istodolez]

I buy insurance to help manage risk because so many (including me) have had accidents & personal catastrophes in their lives before.
I have smoke detectors in my home because so many homes have burned down before.
I look both ways before crossing the street because so many have been hit before.

Are you trying to tell me that I need to buy climate crisis insurance because the Sun is destroying chunks of the planet and water from the polar ice caps are burying civilizations?

-sigh-

You buy insurance because there is a RISK that accidents will happen. What you are being asked to do with regards to climate is accept that thousands upon thousands of independent researchers across the globe over the last 50 years or so have found reasonable evidence that says human activities are largely responsible for changing climate. There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies.

So you buy insurance. Do you also gamble all of your available income each month? Probably not. Why? Because there is a RISK that you will lose it. In fact the EXPERTS will tell you that you are far more likely to LOSE if you bet against the house.

So I suggest to you that you already take actions that would be little different from dealing with climate change. I will suggest that you are NOT an expert on climate and probably know VANISHINGLY little about the technical details (most of us on here are in the same boat). So why do you wish to bet against the experts on this one?

 

[cabse5]

Is it "cleverness" that you are hoping to express by shortening atmosphere to "'sphere"?

Nah. They said 'verse instead of universe in the TV show Firefly so I'm using 'sphere for atmosphere.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies.

Nonsense.

This is not what the science indicates.

Please stop your fabrications.

 

[watsup]

Nonsense.

This is not what the science indicates.

Please stop your fabrications.

It is indeed what the science indicates. Please stop with your fabrications saying otherwise.

 

[istodolez]

Nonsense.

This is not what the science indicates.

Please stop your fabrications.

There you go again. "Fabrications"

STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.

STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.

 

[longview]

It is indeed what the science indicates. Please stop with your fabrications saying otherwise.

Please cite the science that says,
"There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies."
What would be the basis of this serious risk, and how would it differ from the already observed human caused and natural climate change?

 

[watsup]

Please cite the science that says,
"There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies."
What would be the basis of this serious risk, and how would it differ from the already observed human caused and natural climate change?

I and we have answered this question before and you just keep plowing around in circles. You need to find another hobby.

 

[Ren]

-sigh-

You buy insurance because there is a RISK that accidents will happen. What you are being asked to do with regards to climate is accept that thousands upon thousands of independent researchers across the globe over the last 50 years or so have found reasonable evidence that says human activities are largely responsible for changing climate. There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies.

So you buy insurance. Do you also gamble all of your available income each month? Probably not. Why? Because there is a RISK that you will lose it. In fact the EXPERTS will tell you that you are far more likely to LOSE if you bet against the house.

So I suggest to you that you already take actions that would be little different from dealing with climate change. I will suggest that you are NOT an expert on climate and probably know VANISHINGLY little about the technical details (most of us on here are in the same boat). So why do you wish to bet against the experts on this one?

I buy insurance based on actual risks not what a bunch of so-called experts believe is going to happen that never happens.

See, in order for someone to be sold on this "climate emergency", there has to be an actual emergency -- and I mean the kind of emergency that even the dumbest of humans can appreciate. You don't have that.

There has to be precedent for your claims and you don't don't have that either.

I'm sorry, but all you people look like is a bunch of assholes who want power over everyone else.

 

[longview]

I and we have answered this question before and you just keep plowing around in circles. You need to find another hobby.

Only in your imagination! The threat of catastrophic consequences from continued CO2 emissions,
is basically an idle threat, as it is unlikely we could emit the levels of CO2 required.

 

[watsup]

Only in your imagination! The threat of catastrophic consequences from continued CO2 emissions,
is basically an idle threat, as it is unlikely we could emit the levels of CO2 required.

Yes, you've said that literally hundreds of times. You really need a new hobby.

 

[longview]

Yes, you've said that literally hundreds of times. You really need a new hobby.

So you still refuse to support your statement,
"There is a SERIOUS risk that we will be thrown into a new climate regime quickly thus destabilizing our economies and societies."

 

[watsup]

I buy insurance based on actual risks not what a bunch of so-called experts believe is going to happen that never happens.

See, in order for someone to be sold on this "climate emergency", there has to be an actual emergency -- and I mean the kind of emergency that even the dumbest of humans can appreciate. You don't have that.

There has to be precedent for your claims and you don't don't have that either.

I'm sorry, but all you people look like is a bunch of assholes who want power over everyone else.

Same old conspiracy theory as always. *YAWN*

 

[Lord of Planar]

There you go again. "Fabrications"

STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.

STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.


STOP ACCUSING EVERYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH OF LYING.

Please stop yelling in the mirror.

You might shatter it, Then on top of all the fallacies you constantly create, you will have seven years of bad luck too.

 

[Ren]

Same old conspiracy theory as always. *YAWN*

The only climate emergency is in your head.

 

[watsup]

The only climate emergency is in your head.

The only conspiracy theories are in your head.

 

[Ren]

The only conspiracy theories are in your head.

You really suck at this. lol

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Show me scientific evidence of imminent climate change catastrophe because of too much CO2 in the 'sphere. Since you can't, your climate change catastrophe conspiracy theory is just like the conspiracy theories of earth as the center of the universe and the earth is flat.

I provided a link to NASA website in my post. There the webpage also have many scientific links if you want to learn more. Also the greenhouse effect from C02 have been known for a long time.

1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers
   B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
   Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
   V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
   B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
2. In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
   
   In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
   
   In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956.

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

It can also be good to remember that NASA for the four last years was under the control of a former climate denier appointed by Trump. There Bridenstine couldn't find any contrary evidence but instead himself started to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

I also have provided many other sources in this thread. Like for example the effect climate change have on farming.

"Agricultural research has fostered productivity growth, but the historical influence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) on that growth has not been quantified. We develop a robust econometric model of weather effects on global agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and combine this model with counterfactual climate scenarios to evaluate impacts of past climate trends on TFP. Our baseline model indicates that ACC has reduced global agricultural TFP by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth. The effect is substantially more severe (a reduction of ~26–34%) in warmer regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. We also find that global agriculture has grown more vulnerable to ongoing climate change."

Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth - Nature Climate Change

Agricultural productivity has increased historically, but the impact of climate change on productivity growth is not clear. In the last 60 years, anthropogenic climate change has reduced agricultural total factor production globally by 21%, with stronger impacts in warmer regions.

www.nature.com

 

[cabse5]

I provided a link to NASA website in my post. There the webpage also have many scientific links if you want to learn more. Also the greenhouse effect from C02 have been known for a long time.

1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers
   B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
   Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
   V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
   B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
2. In 1824, Joseph Fourier calculated that an Earth-sized planet, at our distance from the Sun, ought to be much colder. He suggested something in the atmosphere must be acting like an insulating blanket. In 1856, Eunice Foote discovered that blanket, showing that carbon dioxide and water vapor in Earth's atmosphere trap escaping infrared (heat) radiation.
   
   In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
   
   In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth’s atmosphere to global warming. In 1941, Milutin Milankovic linked ice ages to Earth’s orbital characteristics. Gilbert Plass formulated the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change in 1956.

Evidence - NASA Science

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

It can also be good to remember that NASA for the four last years was under the control of a former climate denier appointed by Trump. There Bridenstine couldn't find any contrary evidence but instead himself started to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

I also have provided many other sources in this thread. Like for example the effect climate change have on farming.

"Agricultural research has fostered productivity growth, but the historical influence of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) on that growth has not been quantified. We develop a robust econometric model of weather effects on global agricultural total factor productivity (TFP) and combine this model with counterfactual climate scenarios to evaluate impacts of past climate trends on TFP. Our baseline model indicates that ACC has reduced global agricultural TFP by about 21% since 1961, a slowdown that is equivalent to losing the last 7 years of productivity growth. The effect is substantially more severe (a reduction of ~26–34%) in warmer regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean. We also find that global agriculture has grown more vulnerable to ongoing climate change."

Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth - Nature Climate Change

Agricultural productivity has increased historically, but the impact of climate change on productivity growth is not clear. In the last 60 years, anthropogenic climate change has reduced agricultural total factor production globally by 21%, with stronger impacts in warmer regions.

www.nature.com

No scientific evidence presented in any of the articles. Hypothesis, conjecture and ideology is presented, however.

 

[watsup]

No scientific evidence presented in any of the articles. Hypothesis, conjecture and ideology is presented, however.

Psychological projection.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

No scientific evidence presented in any of the articles. Hypothesis, conjecture and ideology is presented, however.

You have provided no evidence of your own but instead just your personal opinions. Also why would world's leading scientific organizations and the world's leading universities acknowledge the urgent need for action if there was no evidence as you claim?

Also why did federal agencies under the scrutiny of Republican climate deniers continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action?

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Both companies and countries acknowledge the need for action on climate change.

UK commits to 78% emissions cut by 2035

UPDATE: RenewableUK urges Government to comment to decarbonise electricity by 100% by 2035

www.renews.biz

Climate change: Shipping industry calls for new global carbon tax

The global shipping industry wants governments to tax their carbon emissions as they try to tackle climate change

www.bbc.com

 

[cabse5]

You have provided no evidence of your own but instead just your personal opinions. Also why would world's leading scientific organizations and the world's leading universities acknowledge the urgent need for action if there was no evidence as you claim?

Also why did federal agencies under the scrutiny of Republican climate deniers continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action?

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

It's environmentalists who are providing their personal opinions to back up their climate change catastrophe theories.

Show some scientific data. Quit subscribing to this conspiracy theory.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Both companies and countries acknowledge the need for action on climate change.

UK commits to 78% emissions cut by 2035

UPDATE: RenewableUK urges Government to comment to decarbonise electricity by 100% by 2035

www.renews.biz

Climate change: Shipping industry calls for new global carbon tax

The global shipping industry wants governments to tax their carbon emissions as they try to tackle climate change

www.bbc.com

Just reading the headline of the global shipping one, I say we tax the hell out of the ocean cargo vessels that so heavily pollute, for their pollution. Not for CO2.

 

[longview]

Just reading the headline of the global shipping one, I say we tax the hell out of the ocean cargo vessels that so heavily pollute, for their pollution. Not for CO2.

Really, or at least ban using bunker fuel. ( I am not sure that is enforceable.)