How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[BackAgain]

I think the question is "why is it changing NOW"?

I mean, yeah, we know that climate changes in earth history. But it always had a REASON. What if the reason for the CURRENT warming is....us?

Couldn't we be doing something to make this hard on ourselves?

Because it always changes. Why would it not be changing, now?

Of course there is always a reason or reasons. There are always underlying causes. That some of those things are coming together, now, to have the effect of causing the changes which we can observe does NOT establish that anything humans are doing (CO2 emissions) is such a cause.

Before we rush to the judgment that “we need to do something!!” it might make better sense to recognize how little our behaviors have any impact (if any at all) on planetary climate and climate change.

 

[Paracetamol63]

In the state of Nebraska the power company has to buy any extra power that an individual or individual entity produces in excess of what they need.

That's awesome!
Now all his neighbors get to help pay for his idiocy.

But the electric company gets extra energy into the grid that they didn't have to generate themselves! Seems like maybe the electric company is making out pretty well too.

This is called "Net Metering". The debate can definitely be had that if the power company paid full "retail rates" for the electricity it wouldn't be good, but if the rate they "pay" the generator is in any way less than what they normally get for a kWh of electricity it's win-win for pretty much everyone.

 

[Stann]

We are getting warmer. In the past we got warmer when the sun put out more energy or whatever, but right now the scientists say the sun can't account for the warming we see. So we look around and check all the other things that can cause warming NATURALLY and we don't see any of those in the "warm up" phase.

So it's a question: what is causing it? Well, the science indicates that about half of the warming (or more) that we are seeing NOW can't be attributed to natural things only. But it makes sense when we start looking at what humans are doing.

Suddenly the warming MAKES SENSE. It "lines up" with the factors that are causing it. And at least half if not more of that is apparently due to human activities.

On today's news, we're past the breaking point on the Greenland Ice Cap. The oceans are guaranteed to rise 10 inches. 30 inches by approximately 2150.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Of course there is always a reason or reasons. There are always underlying causes. That some of those things are coming together, now, to have the effect of causing the changes which we can observe does NOT establish that anything humans are doing (CO2 emissions) is such a cause.

Unfortunately the science says otherwise.

Before we rush to the judgment that “we need to do something!!” it might make better sense to recognize how little our behaviors have any impact (if any at all) on planetary climate and climate change.

We've been studying this topic for almost a century and a half. In earnest for at least 50 years, maybe 60 years. I think we've got a pretty good handle on most of it.

 

[Stann]

But the electric company gets extra energy into the grid that they didn't have to generate themselves! Seems like maybe the electric company is making out pretty well too.

This is called "Net Metering". The debate can definitely be had that if the power company paid full "retail rates" for the electricity it wouldn't be good, but if the rate they "pay" the generator is in any way less than what they normally get for a kWh of electricity it's win-win for pretty much everyone.

Every city in the United States has massive industrial parks, commercial districts. They would be ideal to put solar panels on. I don't know why president Biden hasn't come up with this idea. A joint effort between government and the private sector. A win-win for everyone. Industry commerce would get discounted electricity and the extra could be put into the electrical grid to help everyone else.

 

[Paracetamol63]

On today's news, we're past the breaking point on the Greenland Ice Cap. The oceans are guaranteed to rise 10 inches. 30 inches by approximately 2150.

I'd be really careful with the "guaranteed" bit. It's always the hyperbolic scary predictions that denialists and skeptics come back to if they don't happen as advertised.

Normally most of these predictions are best characterized as "likely", but not guaranteed in any given time frame. The Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica could collapse within the next year and cause catastrophic sea level rise. Or it could hold out for many more years. The odds aren't good either way.

But still, I'd avoid "guaranteed" in any statement like this.

 

[BackAgain]

Unfortunately the science says otherwise.

No. It doesn’t. Some scientists make that claim. But it’s very much disputed.

We've been studying this topic for almost a century and a half.

And?

In earnest for at least 50 years, maybe 60 years.

Ok. And?

I think we've got a pretty good handle on most of it.

I don’t think you or they do have any such good handle on it.

 

[Paracetamol63]

No. It doesn’t. Some scientists make that claim. But it’s very much disputed.

Not really. I know there are a lot of folks who CLAIM the science is in serious flux, but it really isn't. It's not as unclear as one might hope.

And?

Ok. And?

I don’t think you or they do have any such good handle on it.

Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't really speak for them. But I know this approach of "let's wait and see if we can learn just a bit more before we take any actions" isn't really a rational way to go about it.

Even if AGW isn't real, we STILL need to find greener, less polluting and RENEWABLE energy sources. Right now fossil fuels just aren't going to be a great solution in the long run. We either have to put more and more and more pollution controls on the generators and some day most of it WILL run low. We may not run completely out of oil anytime soon but we WILL end up having to spend more and more and more to get lower quality coal and oil out of the ground.

Green energy is in our future, regardless of the reason.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe we could take some of the money that is shuffled to the oil companies in the form of subsidies and put it toward greener energy sources?

Sounds like it could work.

Which oil subsidies?

 

[Stann]

I'd be really careful with the "guaranteed" bit. It's always the hyperbolic scary predictions that denialists and skeptics come back to if they don't happen as advertised.

Normally most of these predictions are best characterized as "likely", but not guaranteed in any given time frame. The Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica could collapse within the next year and cause catastrophic sea level rise. Or it could hold out for many more years. The odds aren't good either way.

But still, I'd avoid "guaranteed" in any statement like this.

Well the expert said that no matter what we do the oceans are going to rise at least 10 in now. I'll go with the experts, most of what they're saying is already happenig. Soon Greenland will actually be green.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Well, between him and me my utility bill says otherwise.

Math is hard for some people.

$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.

I don't believe he got any "subsidies", just a tax break that was not all that great.

Yeah, a tax credit is a subsidy.

I agree, but others tell me that it isn't. Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies. They IMMEDIATELY point out that in their view tax breaks aren't subsidies.

Maybe tax breaks are a subsidy for the regular person but NOT a subsidy for oil companies?

 

[Paracetamol63]

Well the expert said that no matter what we do the oceans are going to rise at least 10 in now. I'll go with the experts, most of what they're saying is already happenig. Soon Greenland will actually be green.

I don't doubt the seas will rise (they are currently doing so). I'm just saying that be careful with language like "guaranteed". That level of "perfect knowledge" is what the denialists and skeptics will focus on. They will laugh when something doesn't work EXACTLY as forecast.

 

[BackAgain]

Not really. I know there are a lot of folks who CLAIM the science is in serious flux, but it really isn't. It's not as unclear as one might hope.



Since I'm not a climate scientist I can't really speak for them. But I know this approach of "let's wait and see if we can learn just a bit more before we take any actions" isn't really a rational way to go about it.

Even if AGW isn't real, we STILL need to find greener, less polluting and RENEWABLE energy sources. Right now fossil fuels just aren't going to be a great solution in the long run. We either have to put more and more and more pollution controls on the generators and some day most of it WILL run low. We may not run completely out of oil anytime soon but we WILL end up having to spend more and more and more to get lower quality coal and oil out of the ground.

Green energy is in our future, regardless of the reason.

I get it. I’m not a climate scientist either. So my layman’s grasp of the dispute in the scientific community is equal to your own.

And the facts are in dispute. The evidence is in dispute. The scientific methodology is in dispute. Certain basic underlying assumptions are in dispute. And the conclusions are in dispute. Plus, the standard ploy of “consensus” is not only in dispute, but not scientific anyway.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Which oil subsidies?

The ones the oil companies get.

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.



I agree, but others tell me that it isn't. Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies. They IMMEDIATELY point out that in their view tax breaks aren't subsidies.

Maybe tax breaks are a subsidy for the regular person but NOT a subsidy for oil companies?

$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.

You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?

I agree, but others tell me that it isn't. Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies.

Oil subsidy? Anything specific?

 

[Paracetamol63]

And the facts are in dispute. The evidence is in dispute. The scientific methodology is in dispute. Certain basic underlying assumptions are in dispute. And the conclusions are in dispute.

Hmm. There are still people out there who think the earth is flat. If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.

There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely. Questions always exist.

Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled. I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.

Right now the best bet looks like following the mainstream science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ones the oil companies get.

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

Be specific. That link isn't helping you.

 

[Paracetamol63]

$0 vs $115. The math tells me I'm coming out the loser here.

You pay $115 a month and he pays zero?
What was the total cost of his system? Batteries?

I don't know. All I know is he doesn't pay an electric bill (He may pay a small surcharge every month for grid upkeep). He's also not on batteries but uses net metering.

I agree, but others tell me that it isn't. Especially when you tell them that OIL COMPANIES get subsidies.

Oil subsidy? Anything specific?

Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion In Subsidies in 2020, Report Finds

e360.yale.edu

 

[Paracetamol63]

Be specific. That link isn't helping you.

Sorry. Just telling you what the world says about oil company subsidies.

 

[Meister]

Hmm. There are still people out there who think the earth is flat. If one asked them they'd make the same claims about earth sphericity.

There are always "skeptics" but just because some question something, does not make it less likely. Questions always exist.

Right now there's a TON of smart people out there who think that science is pretty settled. I'm not really in a position to question them (that would assume I understood it better than they do) and from what I can tell the number of PROFESSIONALS who question the science is really pretty small.

Right now the best bet looks like following the mainstream science.

There are also a ton of smart people that think the science isn't settled.