Question Climate Change: Where do you stand? (1 Viewer)

[SystemShock]

yea, I know. That’s why I used the time frame as a point of reference. We’ve been at this for over 40 years. I’ve already made changes to my lifestyle and passed the habits on to the next generation. When is it going to start making the improvement we were promised?

And we are going to be at this for a much longer period of time. I don't think you quite get it. Again, this is a marathon, not a sprint. All of what you have done? It has prevented things from getting worse.

 

[You]

And we are going to be at this for a much longer period of time. I don't think you quite get it. Again, this is a marathon, not a sprint. All of what you have done? It has prevented things from getting worse.

Oh I quite get it.... for whatever there is to 'get'.
And "much longer period" means what?
If it's a marathon, it means there is a finish line. Where / When is that finish line and what exactly will it look like?

 

[SystemShock]

Oh I quite get it.... for whatever there is to 'get'.
And "much longer period" means what?
If it's a marathon, it means there is a finish line. Where / When is that finish line and what exactly will it look like?

Again, this is going to be a long process. Chances are, neither you or I will see that finish line, if there actually is one, but what it'd look like is going to depend on what we do now.

I got this fuzzy memory of my great grandmother, going out to the backyard, muttering she couldn't see anyone on the moon.

 

[Taurus]

Where in the article was there an argument made that there has been a 35% increase in CO2?

You still haven't addressed acidification.

Also, .04% is irrelevant. CO2 levels would have to (what's beyond "skyrocket? Go into warp?) go into warp for the percentage to make much headway over the massive amounts of nitrogen and oxygen.

You're using one measurement, percentage, to argue against findings based on a different measurement, ppm.

 

[Taurus]

I don’t agree.

Who amongst us is a climatologist or meteorologist or otherwise qualified, scientifically, to evaluate the change in the climate or even the data that get presented?

For the record, I am not. For those that are, please post your credentials. Otherwise.... well, you’re just like me.

In my life, I’ve talked to two. Both are very prominent and well known down here. Most of you would know their names. I talked to one back in the 90’s and the other around 2006. Both agreed that the climate changes. Both also had big questions about the impact that humans had on the climate.

45 years ago, We were told to re cycle our plastics and paper —so we did. Change our cars to be more efficient- so we did.
More recently, we were told to stop using inefficient hvac systems- so we did. I spent over $5,000 on this alone in the past 2 years!
Then we had to change lightbulbs.
These are just changes that are prominent in most of our lives today. There’s lots of others.

All of this is supposedly based on ‘science’ that was telling us to make these changes now or else we’d be suffering from rising water levels, excessive heat .... and cold... starvation and generally the demise of life on the planet.

So here we are. I’m over 50. Still being told that science is predicting our demise if WE don’t make the changes that they say need to be done.

I just want to know when we can start seeing the benefits of all of these changes that we have made so far?
When will the ‘science’ actually be right?

Are you currently dead of skin cancer?

 

[Complex Kid]

 

[You]

Again, this is going to be a long process. Chances are, neither you or I will see that finish line, if there actually is one, but what it'd look like is going to depend on what we do now.

I got this fuzzy memory of my great grandmother, going out to the backyard, muttering she couldn't see anyone on the moon.

Rather than continue this dialogue... are you a meteorologist or climatologist or even related to the science field in any way?

 

[Lurkquacious]

First, I think your op/ed is well written, and you do a good job of laying out some meteorological concepts in terms that allow the lay person (such as myself) to understand the mechanisms that you describe. The article does come across as a politically driven piece, as I'm sure it was meant to, being an op/ed. I have no problem with that.

However, it seems that you're latching on to the percentage of gases in the atmosphere, specifically the low percentage of CO2, as a reason to disregard (or at the very least, to greatly minimize) the effect of these trace gases on the climate of our planet. It seems to me that while on the surface, this seems scientifically (or more importantly, mathematically) logical, it really is not, and can be rebutted by many known natural examples.

For instance - when I notice some mustard algae forming on the walls of my 17,500 gallon pool, I add chlorine - usually 5 lbs. That, in a volumetric measure, would be increasing the chlorine content of the water by only .003% That's not a very appreciable amount - that's only a 30ppm increase. And if the starting concentration of chlorine was .04%, it is now .043%, which, when rounded to the nearest millionth is still .04%. I presume you know this, since you've regularly used the qualifiers 'around' or 'about' when discussing the % concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how it hasn't changed appreciably since 1979. Moreover, it allows you to look at a chart such as SystemShock provided, courtesy of NASA, which shows CO2 ppm rising from 380 to 410 over that same time period and via rounding say that .038% is equivalent to .041% - both round to .04%, therefore the concentration level is practically the same (even though there's an increase of 30 parts per million ). And such a small increase in a compound which makes up such a small percentage of the whole has to be negligible in its effect is the conclusion you are seemingly proposing.

The odd thing here - when I increase the chlorine in my pool by the same percentage/ppm - the algae dies.

So for me, your thesis is seemingly disproven - very small increases in what can be described as trace compounds or elements based on overall percentages, can - and do - have specific and measurable biological effects on organisms and ecosystems.

This isn't a proof of AGW, etc etc. I am a bear of very little brain, so I'll leave that postulating to more learned climate scientists. All that I'm saying is that this particular argument, as a rebuttal to AGW proponents' claims of global CO2 concentration as a primary causative factor, fails at the conceptual level.

(I'm gonna leave out the conflation between meteorology and climatology at the end of the article - yeah, I've never heard a weatherman cite CO2 concentration levels as a reason to take/leave an umbrella when heading to work, and I don't expect that I ever will. While both fields are atmospheric sciences, their foci and application are different. But again, I'm certain that you know this.)

 

[SystemShock]

Rather than continue this dialogue... are you a meteorologist or climatologist or even related to the science field in any way?

That's an interesting question.
Let me answer with another question: do you need to be an astronomer to know the Earth rotates around the Sun?

 

[You]

That's an interesting question.
Let me answer with another question: do you need to be an astronomer to know the Earth rotates around the Sun?

But that’s not what we’re talking about And while I can accept climate change as a fact, I cannot explain why. An astronomer can explain it though.

Most will agree that there is climate change. It’s happened before any of us were alive and will continue. You cannot explain why, but you’re happy to explain in a sports message board that “it’s man made”. You’re not qualified.
And You’re not qualified to state: “it’s going to be a long process”- (whatever that means...) Yet you do. You literally have no idea.

 

[SystemShock]

But that’s not what we’re talking about And while I can accept climate change as a fact, I cannot explain why. An astronomer can explain it though.

We are not talking about Astronomy, no, and you are not an astronomer... however, I am sure you'll feel 100% confident in telling someone else that the Earth rotates around the Sun, even though you are not an astronomer, or witnessed the Earth rotate around the Sun 1st hand... what makes you qualified to say the Earth rotates around the Sun?

If we needed college degrees to be qualified to speak about everything, we would be silent most of the time.

Most will agree that there is climate change. It’s happened before any of us were alive and will continue.

Really? What qualifies you to make that statement? You are not qualified.

You cannot explain why,

I can, actually. But that's irrelevant.

but you’re happy to explain in a sports message board that “it’s man made”. You’re not qualified.

Here is a big disconnect, either on purpose or out of a lack of understanding of what is being said.

Climate change in on itself is not "man made". What is "man made", is the unprecedented rate of change in climate factors since the start of the industrial revolution. At no point in the recorded history of Earth have climate factors changed so dramatically. And we know what is making these factors change so dramatically: it's us.

And You’re not qualified to state: “it’s going to be a long process”- (whatever that means...) Yet you do. You literally have no idea.

I literally have an idea. It's a very simple concept, really.

We (as in the human race) are causing a dramatic increase in factors that affect climate change. What we need to do, is correct what we are doing to cause this increase, so that the rate of climate change comes as close as possible to the natural rate of climate change.

And we know what's causing the increase. So we need to find alternatives for these behaviors/practices.

How long is that going to take, is going to depend on how fast we find and implement solutions/find alternatives for our current behaviors/practices. But surely neither you or I would see the end of this.

And who knows: maybe one day science will find a way to fully control climate change.

Really, https://climate.nasa.gov is a great resource.

 

[ndcc]

First, I think your op/ed is well written, and you do a good job of laying out some meteorological concepts in terms that allow the lay person (such as myself) to understand the mechanisms that you describe. The article does come across as a politically driven piece, as I'm sure it was meant to, being an op/ed. I have no problem with that.

However, it seems that you're latching on to the percentage of gases in the atmosphere, specifically the low percentage of CO2, as a reason to disregard (or at the very least, to greatly minimize) the effect of these trace gases on the climate of our planet. It seems to me that while on the surface, this seems scientifically (or more importantly, mathematically) logical, it really is not, and can be rebutted by many known natural examples.

For instance - when I notice some mustard algae forming on the walls of my 17,500 gallon pool, I add chlorine - usually 5 lbs. That, in a volumetric measure, would be increasing the chlorine content of the water by only .003% That's not a very appreciable amount - that's only a 30ppm increase. And if the starting concentration of chlorine was .04%, it is now .043%, which, when rounded to the nearest millionth is still .04%. I presume you know this, since you've regularly used the qualifiers 'around' or 'about' when discussing the % concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and how it hasn't changed appreciably since 1979. Moreover, it allows you to look at a chart such as SystemShock provided, courtesy of NASA, which shows CO2 ppm rising from 380 to 410 over that same time period and via rounding say that .038% is equivalent to .041% - both round to .04%, therefore the concentration level is practically the same (even though there's an increase of 30 parts per million ). And such a small increase in a compound which makes up such a small percentage of the whole has to be negligible in its effect is the conclusion you are seemingly proposing.

The odd thing here - when I increase the chlorine in my pool by the same percentage/ppm - the algae dies.

So for me, your thesis is seemingly disproven - very small increases in what can be described as trace compounds or elements based on overall percentages, can - and do - have specific and measurable biological effects on organisms and ecosystems.

This isn't a proof of AGW, etc etc. I am a bear of very little brain, so I'll leave that postulating to more learned climate scientists. All that I'm saying is that this particular argument, as a rebuttal to AGW proponents' claims of global CO2 concentration as a primary causative factor, fails at the conceptual level.

(I'm gonna leave out the conflation between meteorology and climatology at the end of the article - yeah, I've never heard a weatherman cite CO2 concentration levels as a reason to take/leave an umbrella when heading to work, and I don't expect that I ever will. While both fields are atmospheric sciences, their foci and application are different. But again, I'm certain that you know this.)

Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, the motivation for the OP-ED is to give a call for honesty in the data and theses others put forth. If the Green New Deal is the way to go... fine. But don’t feed conjecture and interpre-facts as incontrovertible evidence.

Thus far honest and open dialogue is not the norm.

 

[RazorOye]

Thanks for the feedback.

Actually, the motivation for the OP-ED is to give a call for honesty in the data and theses others put forth. If the Green New Deal is the way to go... fine. But don’t feed conjecture and interpre-facts as incontrovertible evidence.

Thus far honest and open dialogue is not the norm.

you mention the Green New Deal again here, but yet again there's nothing specific in your objection(s). And you talk about how there needs to be "honesty" - where is the dishonesty? Is it in the Green New Deal? If so, say so - and explain where. Or do you mean someone else? Are you talking about politicians co-opting the cause for political points? If so, then say so - keeping in mind that you're engaging in politicization yourself, so if you object to something "these others" are doing then you need to be mindful of it yourself. Or do you mean scientists in the community? This isn't merely climatology and meteorology, mind you. We're talking tens of thousands of scientists, across the globe, in a variety of disciplines - many of whom adhere to scientifically rigorous principles that undergo much more scrutiny than this op-ed.

It still feels like the op-ed is designed to be specifically against the Green New Deal (and I'm not the only one with that impression) and when pointed out in the latest example, you refer to it again but suggest that it's "conjecture" or dishonest. And I'm not seeing anything specific.

You're calling for honesty. From whom? Who isn't being honest? Where? How? None of that is clear. As a result, it seems that it's primarily a political response to the Green New Deal. It's not empirical.

Without any specific counter or context, it's hard to identify who you're talking to/about and what you're asking for. So, who is "feeding conjecture"? What facts cited, by whom, are merely "interpretive" and how are they not/less than "incontrovertible"? Who isn't dealing "honestly" and what dialogue isn't "open" - where is it?

Without any of those specifics, there's not going to be much in the way of an interactive dialogue and the impression is that it's just designed to be a "take my word for it and doubt the Green New Deal"

 

[You]

We are not talking about Astronomy, no, and you are not an astronomer... however, I am sure you'll feel 100% confident in telling someone else that the Earth rotates around the Sun, even though you are not an astronomer, or witnessed the Earth rotate around the Sun 1st hand... what makes you qualified to say the Earth rotates around the Sun?

If we needed college degrees to be qualified to speak about everything, we would be silent most of the time.


Really? What qualifies you to make that statement? You are not qualified.


I can, actually. But that's irrelevant.


Here is a big disconnect, either on purpose or out of a lack of understanding of what is being said.

Climate change in on itself is not "man made". What is "man made", is the unprecedented rate of change in climate factors since the start of the industrial revolution. At no point in the recorded history of Earth have climate factors changed so dramatically. And we know what is making these factors change so dramatically: it's us.


I literally have an idea. It's a very simple concept, really.

We (as in the human race) are causing a dramatic increase in factors that affect climate change. What we need to do, is correct what we are doing to cause this increase, so that the rate of climate change comes as close as possible to the natural rate of climate change.

And we know what's causing the increase. So we need to find alternatives for these behaviors/practices.

How long is that going to take, is going to depend on how fast we find and implement solutions/find alternatives for our current behaviors/practices. But surely neither you or I would see the end of this.

And who knows: maybe one day science will find a way to fully control climate change.

Really, https://climate.nasa.gov is a great resource.

Glad you have it all understood.

 

[saintology]

My OP-ED column on Climate Change. Thanks for reading.

American Wire News · America's Political News Service

American Wire is a daily independent news service dedicated to bringing our readers accurate, reliable news and information from a conservative perspective.

www.commdiginews.com

Chief among the things I take issue with what you wrote and question your motivations is that you repeatedly state that the scientific consensus is that human accelerated climate change is real (you neglect to mention that they also think it is a significant threat to the global ecosystem). Yet, you brazenly dismiss this in the face of untold issues with the green new deal, and say we should look at emperical evidence? We have enough emperical evidence for more than 97% agreement about anthropogenic climate change (even higher among your fellow climatologists). What more emperical evidence are you waiting for? They are all saying that the relative change and rate of change in atmospheric composition is a problem for the planet as accelerated by human activity.

If you disagree with the green new deal, that is a whole other enchilada. But as our fellow scientists are repeatedly saying - something must be done to curb it quickly as a global community. So, what's the issue exactly? What in the green new deal is the issue., Or are you just a human accelerated climate change skeptic? I can't tell by the OP Ed - it's highly political and scarcely truly scientific beyond framing concepts of atmospheric science sprinkled with political pot shots.