Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[MIJB#19]

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record | NASA

So all of our green initiatives and the Kyoto Treaty have had no effect so far?

[flere-imsaho]

Correct. Even in spite of our efforts, we still aren't doing enough to arrest global warming. I hope that helps, Dutch.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So all of our green initiatives and the Kyoto Treaty have had no effect so far?

Or another way of looking at it is "How much worse would it be if we weren't trying to limit our carbon output?"

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Correct. Even in spite of our efforts, we still aren't doing enough to arrest global warming. I hope that helps, Dutch.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have spent a lot of money globally and the results of that have been the worst year on record? That's not very reassuring.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Or another way of looking at it is "How much worse would it be if we weren't trying to limit our carbon output?"

1998 was pretty hot, I guess that's understandable since we had only just begun our efforts to cool the planet. But since the UN summit in 1992 (Earth Summit) where we would start reducing greenhouse gasses (23 years ago) the result of all of these efforts so far to "fix" carbon emissions: The record for the hottest year on record. That's not very reassuring either.

And the answer certainly isn't, "Keep doing more and more and spending more and more" when there still isn't any scientific fact on what exactly we're supposed to be doing here. The trend I'm seeing is that we could spend for another 23 years and not get any results...is that not fair to say?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have spent a lot of money globally and the results of that have been the worst year on record? That's not very reassuring.



1998 was pretty hot, I guess that's understandable since we had only just begun our efforts to cool the planet. But since the UN summit in 1992 (Earth Summit) where we would start reducing greenhouse gasses (23 years ago) the result of all of these efforts so far to "fix" carbon emissions: The record for the hottest year on record. That's not very reassuring either.

And the answer certainly isn't, "Keep doing more and more and spending more and more" when there still isn't any scientific fact on what exactly we're supposed to be doing here. The trend I'm seeing is that we could spend for another 23 years and not get any results...is that not fair to say?

Ah, the ole' "we haven't done much of anything but since we haven't seen any results we shouldn't do anything" inference.

Dutch: I'm going to hike Everest
*takes one step*
Dutch: I'm not at the top yet, better quit now!

[Dutch]

Blackadar, I'm not getting in your way, I'm not stopping anybody from trying. I am simply asking questions because I am skeptical of the action and the result. Aren't you the least bit concerned about this finding?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Blackadar, I'm not getting in your way, I'm not stopping anybody from trying. I am simply asking questions because I am skeptical of the action and the result. Aren't you the least bit concerned about this finding?

Tough to undo two hundred years of industrialization in twenty. We may even be playing a zero sum game here where we're only slowing the deterioration as opposed to stopping it or reversing it.

It may take far more strict regulation over a long period of time in order to reverse things. Twenty or even fifty years is nothing in the lifespan of a planet.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Tough to undo two hundred years of industrialization in twenty. We may even be playing a zero sum game here where we're only slowing the deterioration as opposed to stopping it or reversing it.

It may take far more strict regulation over a long period of time in order to reverse things. Twenty or even fifty years is nothing in the lifespan of a planet.

I'm not linking the logic here. According to the environmentalists, the last 20 years means everything.

[molson]

It's fascinating to read the earlier pages of this thread, which I think occurred at the tail end of the previous stage of this debate. In that stage, there was a vocal minority who though the planet wasn't really warming and that it was all a big conspiracy. People posted photos of a snowy day somewhere on earth to show that the whole concept was full of shit.

But now we're past that stage. There's not many of that vocal minority left. Not a lot of true deniers left. They lost. They were wrong. So they subtly switched to something else. The earth is warming, but humans aren't causing it. That was a better stage, and it seemed like there was more in that minority that were willing to even hedge and acknowledge that cleaner air is good for everyone no matter whether you think this is all a conspiracy or not. I wonder if that stage is starting to wind down too, and the next one will maybe be that we're powerless to stop it, so we shouldn't even try to make our planet cleaner.

But this would be some conspiracy, huh? Some of the debate in here, is just wild. I remember wondering if there has ever been anything like this - a 99% global scientific consensus that was later revealed to be just wrong and corrupt and based upon a conspiracy. The answer I got was really nuts. Someone said the autism/vaccine fraud was similar. That fraud covered ONE scientific article that was debunked by everyone else. Almost the exact inverse of the global warming thing. That just sums up the mentality. People get locked into something based on politics and in that mindset, a 99% global scientific consensus actually looks the same as 1 discredited article. It's one of the more bizarre debates I can imagine.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not linking the logic here. According to the environmentalists, the last 20 years means everything.

Sure it does. Without slowing growth things could be much worse.

According to this, the lifespan of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anywhere from 1,800 to 5,000 years.

atmospheric carbon dioxide

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So all of our green initiatives and the Kyoto Treaty have had no effect so far?

Strictly from a practical perspective, far-reaching things like the Kyoto Treaty are useless until they address the root issue - that billions of people are/will be leaving extreme poverty and moving to a "middle-class" or "post-industrial" lifestyle for lack of better terms. Either you can convince "The West" to accept a drastically lower standard of living (not going to happen), you convince the "2nd/3rd World" to stop trying to better themselves (not going to happen, and also wildly racist), or you realize that the only answer is going to come from technological innovation. Hopefully some of it from massive leaps forward, most of it just from mundane incremental improvements in existing technologies.

I know you're more or less trolling there, but even as someone who's firmly on the anti- Global Warming activists/IPCC/Kyoto-esque protocols the countries that mattered never signed on to Kyoto, we may have slowed the exponential growth of many CO2 producers but without looking at any figures I'd guess we're still well over 1998 numbers in terms of global output and that is literally never going to change as long as it requires people to accept a lower standard of living.

[Warhammer]

I'm still here and quite honestly don't see the point in arguing it. I still feel the same way, but no one wants to have a real debate and take every study as an opporuntity to wave their flag and say, "See I'm right!"

The earth has been warmer and has had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. The world didn't end. Other studies have looked at the past 50 years and found an increase in biomass on the planet.

The other part of the equation is no one has determined what part of the warming is due to man. Even the estimates I have seen, attribute only 20% of any temperature increase to man.

Further, where are the studies looking at positive benefits of warming? Not everything about warming is bad, there are some positive aspects to it.

Another item I mentioned before is in the article. There is a budget battle going on in Washington. In this piece, they mention that it is important for NASA to study the earth and determine the impacts on people, etc. etc. It's a call for funding. As long as they can produce studies showing warming, the gravy train continues.

Now, one thing development that I heard recently, is the government is looking for ways to limit methane emissions from industrial processes. Now I can get behind this because methane is a relatively strong greenhouse gas unlike CO2. As long as we're not given gauges for us to measure our emissions and our pets emissions on a daily basis, I am behind this.

[flere-imsaho]

You posit a lot of things, but you do so without explanation or citation, Warhammer. Were you to do so, I would actually be interested in listening.

Positive aspects to global warming? I'm certainly interested in hearing more, especially if someone feels they outweigh the clear and present negatives.

Increase in biomass? What does that mean? How is it relevant?


But let's get two things straight. One, global warming isn't going to cause the world to end. It may, however, cause a near-extinction or actual extinction of the human race. It has already caused extinction of some species. It already causes widespread human suffering. But no, the world isn't going to end.

Two, give up the argument about funding = only one result of studies. This argument has been hashed and rehashed and thoroughly defeated time and time again in this very thread. There is not evidence for this argument and nothing but evidence against. Do people really want me to post the pie chart again? Seriously?

Even if we set aside the evidence against this argument, it doesn't hold up cognitively. The argument is essentially that "those liberals" in government want studies that support global warming, so they're funneling all that extra cash (hah!) towards these studies. Like there's some sort of slush fund there, being coordinated towards this goal. And even if that were true, wouldn't it pale in comparison to the money that even just the energy companies could funnel to the same activity (for the opposite result)? It just makes no sense, and that's even if you discount all of the evidence.

It's an embarrassing argument, please stop it.

[Warhammer]

This is what I mean. I've given support before in comments, and I frankly do not deem it worth the time or effort citing anything any more for a group of people on a forum where no one is going to have their minds changed.

To answer a few questions in the post, global biomass is the amount of life measured on the planet. Most of this is in plant life, but there has been a significant "greening" of the planet. Importance of this is it flies in the face of the doom and gloom that a warmer planet means life is doomed.

Also, my point is that the article printed has a statement in there has the typical appeal to get additional funding. The funding argument is important because there has to be a reason to fund the study. If everything was normal, why should funding for this or anything else be funded? This does not apply to just global warming studies, but everything else as well infrastructure development, education, military spending, cancer research, etc.

Any how, I'm back to lurking in the thread.

[miked]

I know everything I say is true and backed by evidence, but since none of you believe me I won't cite my evidence. The "not worth my time" argument is so lame, especially given how much bandwith you've dedicated to rehashing your argument without any sources.

As for Dutch's claim, it's possible that we aren't doing enough, it's also possible that even if we did enough it wouldn't matter. To make some changes and expect to see a difference within a year or even 4-5 is silly. Not everything done has a tangible benefit the second you do it, and when you are talking global environmental things it's probably even longer. Imagine if a company was dumping their waste in to a lake and we tested the water and found it was horribly polluted with chemicals. We passed legislation to reduce the waste the company puts in despite their best efforts to explain why it's all the fish and plants in the lake making the waste and chemicals. Six months later, you test the lake and it's still polluted, despite a 25% reduction in the dumping of chemicals. Is your conclusion going to be that reducing the dumping has no effect on the pollution levels of the lake?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

To make some changes and expect to see a difference within a year or even 4-5 is silly.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Measurable differences (CO2 PPM) not immeasurable differences like, "Boy, it sure was cold this winter, therefore the environmentalists have fixed this! W00t!". C'mon man, stay with us here.

[sabotai]

Re: NASA GISS

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

On that website is all the information anyone who wants to double check their work needs. (Of course, I along with everyone else on this forum do not possess the education level to do so. But many others out in the world do, and any one of them can double check NASA's work to see if their results are repeatable and to examine their methodology. That's called science.)

Re: Methane vs. CO2

Methane: Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
CO2: Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

According to that, methane has over 20 times the impact than CO2 aver a 100 year period, "pound for pound". It also says that methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is about 12 years. That's because sunlight breaks down methane into CO2 and H2O. A methane molecule in the atmosphere has a half life of about 7 years.

Phys.org - methane

"Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a high global warming potential of 72 (averaged over 20 years) or 25 (averaged over 100 years). Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years."

Which is the reason its "global warming potential" goes from 72 over 20 years to 25 (according to that site) over 100 years. The impact of CO2, while much smaller "pound for pound" does not change in that time span (it's 1) because it does not break down in the atmosphere like methane.

We also emit much more CO2 than methane. According to the graphs on the sites I linked, CO2 emissions are running at ~5500 metric tons a year vs. ~600 metric tons of methane. That methane breaks down over time, the CO2 does not.

The point isn't to downplay methane's role. Methane has far stronger effect, but it lasts a much shorter period of time in the atmosphere and we emit a lot more CO2 than methane. The point is they are both important. Methane for how strong it is and its short-term effect (which is why there are worries about scenarios involving a sudden spike in methane), and CO2 for the sheer amount we are adding to the carbon cycle and its long-term effect.

[molson]

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax | Science/AAAS | News

The vote was done for political reasons, but still noteworthy considering the most recent poll that I could locate found that only 69% of Americans and 48% of Republicans thought that there was "solid evidence" that the earth was warming. And that's quite a jump from 2010, and oddly, quite a bit lower than it was in 2006.

How Americans see global warming — in 8 charts - The Washington Post

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

By 98 to 1, U.S. Senate passes amendment saying climate change is real, not a hoax | Science/AAAS | News

The vote was done for political reasons, but still noteworthy considering the most recent poll that I could locate found that only 69% of Americans and 48% of Republicans thought that there was "solid evidence" that the earth was warming. And that's quite a jump from 2010, and oddly, quite a bit lower than it was in 2006.

How Americans see global warming — in 8 charts - The Washington Post

The sciencemag.org article does a pretty good job of summarizing that this wasn't really a vote on climate change in any way. Basically, the Democrats knew they couldn't stop the Keystone pipeline bill from passing, so they put in an amendment saying that voting for the bill means you agree that climate change is real. That way, the Democrats could vote for it, removing any political risk and getting the Republicans to vote for a bill that says 'climate change is real!'.

This is far less of any real movement on climate change and far more an indictment on how ridiculous the political process is at this point.

[Kodos]

Got the "where's the global warming now--it's cold!" argument this morning at the store. Sigh. Nevermind that worse winter storms in the northeast is one of the predictions of global warming.

Global warming could make blizzards worse - The Washington Post

[Butter]

Right. Harsher weather extremes are one consequence as I understand it.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Got the "where's the global warming now--it's cold!" argument this morning at the store. Sigh. Nevermind that worse winter storms in the northeast is one of the predictions of global warming.

Global warming could make blizzards worse - The Washington Post

+1

I hear this argument at work all the time. Ugh.

[molson]

Classic northeasterners, thinking the world revolves around them. . To date, we've had the warmest February in history in Boise. I think Global warming refers to global climate and not regional weather.

[Kodos]

It refers to the weather I am seeing today. Everybody knows that.

[nol]

Looks like that sliver in the pie chart may be getting a little smaller: Deeper ties to corporate cash for doubtful climate researcher

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Now who could have ever seen that coming?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

Looks like that sliver in the pie chart may be getting a little smaller: Deeper ties to corporate cash for doubtful climate researcher



Now who could have ever seen that coming?

Climate change denier Willie Soon questioned over Koch, Exxon funding at CFACT Campus event - YouTube

From April 2013....Greenpeace is just hounding this dude to no end!

[cuervo72]

Nah, I'll put this in the correct thread after all:

Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” Croasdale told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact,” he said, nor did anyone doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.

From someone who was studying this...for Exxon.

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

[Dutch]

Wait, so you're saying this is another link to the 99% consensus that we do have some sort of an impact on Climate Change?

[flere-imsaho]

There is no "may be causing", Dutch. The 99% consensus is "is happening & is caused by humans".

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

From 3 pages and 6 months ago:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Source.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Or:

or:

[Dutch]

What!? 99% believe we have some sort of impact on the climate?

[cartman]

xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline

spoilered for size:

Spoiler

[fortheglory]

The impact man has on the earth's climate exists, but is minimal compared to the effects of an ever-changing (albeit slowly) host star. (sun)

[dawgfan]

So the sun has all of a sudden done something in an exponentially faster way than it's done over the previous 22,000 years to impact our global average temperature? Funny how that dramatic change coincides with mankind's industrial activity that's put a bunch of CO2 in the atmosphere...

[cuervo72]

The Kryptonian Council could not be reached for comment.

[Butter]

I'm sure the thousands of astronomers working around the world just totally missed a dramatic increase in the sun's core temperature that would have led to such a dramatic rise in global temperatures.

[Dutch]

They missed the effect of over-population. So it's possible.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hold on tight!

Goodbye World: We’ve Passed the Carbon Tipping Point For Good | Motherboard

[Warhammer]

Gotta love, big round numbers are always significant.

[Dutch]

We need to turn back. Make the Atmosphere Great again!

[tarcone]

I remember when we were going to have another ice age in the 70s. Ah, memories.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I remember when we were going to have another ice age in the 70s. Ah, memories.

Well we've had several Ice Ages since then

[Cap Heresy]

I'm about 1/3 conservative, 1/3 neutral, and 1/3 liberal (which does not necessarily make me an independent, but that's another story). Flat out, anybody who believes a politician over a scientist is a fool. The argument that I most hear about this issue from conservatives (other than that loony-bird Sean Hannity) is that the earth has gone through many many natural cycles of warming and cooling throughout the planet's history. Now, I thought the religious right purported that the earth is only 3,000 years old, so that doesn't hold. But even the non-evangelical right is misguided. You see, these natural cycles of warming and cooling take place in chunks of millions of years, and that is totally irrelevant to the industrial age, which started only 250 years ago.

[Kodos]

Advanced Alien Civilization Discovers Uninhabitable Planet - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[dawgfan]

The decade where we knew about global warming and had the chance to do something about it but failed.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The decade where we knew about global warming and had the chance to do something about it but failed.

This kinda sums up the very long article. Basically, humans don't think of long-term consequences. Instead, we focus on immediate comfort and rewards. One day, it will likely be our downfall.

Everyone knew — and we all still know. We know that the transformations of our planet, which will come gradually and suddenly, will reconfigure the political world order. We know that if we don’t act to reduce emissions, we risk the collapse of civilization. We also know that, without a gargantuan intervention, whatever happens will be worse for our children, worse yet for their children and even worse still for their children’s children, whose lives, our actions have demonstrated, mean nothing to us.

Could it have been any other way? In the late 1970s, a small group of philosophers, economists and political scientists began to debate, largely among themselves, whether a human solution to this human problem was even possible. They did not trouble themselves about the details of warming, taking the worst-case scenario as a given. They asked instead whether humankind, when presented with this particular existential crisis, was willing to prevent it. We worry about the future. But how much, exactly?

The answer, as any economist could tell you, is very little. Economics, the science of assigning value to human behavior, prices the future at a discount; the farther out you project, the cheaper the consequences. This makes the climate problem the perfect economic disaster. The Yale economist William D. Nordhaus, a member of Jimmy Carter’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued in the 1970s that the most appropriate remedy was a global carbon tax. But that required an international agreement, which Nordhaus didn’t think was likely. Michael Glantz, a political scientist who was at the National Center for Atmospheric Research at the time, argued in 1979 that democratic societies are constitutionally incapable of dealing with the climate problem. The competition for resources means that no single crisis can ever command the public interest for long, yet climate change requires sustained, disciplined efforts over decades. And the German physicist-philosopher Klaus Meyer-Abich argued that any global agreement would inevitably favor the most minimal action. Adaptation, Meyer-Abich concluded, “seems to be the most rational political option.” It is the option that we have pursued, consciously or not, ever since.

These theories share a common principle: that human beings, whether in global organizations, democracies, industries, political parties or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations. When I asked John Sununu about his part in this history — whether he considered himself personally responsible for killing the best chance at an effective global-warming treaty — his response echoed Meyer-Abich. “It couldn’t have happened,” he told me, “because, frankly, the leaders in the world at that time were at a stage where they were all looking how to seem like they were supporting the policy without having to make hard commitments that would cost their nations serious resources.” He added, “Frankly, that’s about where we are today.”

If human beings really were able to take the long view — to consider seriously the fate of civilization decades or centuries after our deaths — we would be forced to grapple with the transience of all we know and love in the great sweep of time. So we have trained ourselves, whether culturally or evolutionarily, to obsess over the present, worry about the medium term and cast the long term out of our minds, as we might spit out a poison.

[Kodos]

[CrimsonFox]

So like can this ridiculous title be changed?

[sterlingice]

I dunno. We still have the laughably named "Wuhan Coronavirus (non-political)" thread

SI

[cuervo72]

Going through this thread is leading me to believe that a main reason why FOFC is judged left-of-center now is that a lot of right-leaning posters packed up and went home, because there certainly were enough skeptical views in here.