CDZ What I think I know about Global Warming/Climate Change

[jwoodie]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

 

[forkup]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

Simple, there is an entire line of study handling this. They call it risk impact assessment. To put it simply, the higher the possible impact of an event the higher the level of precautions one should take. In this case since we are talking about a global catastrophic event with very long lasting side effects and the consensus of this event actually happening is high, it stands to reason that taking extreme precautions is warranted.

 

[william the wie]

The usual cause of drastic weather changes is either volcanic activity or solar activity

 

[task0778]

Actually, the consensus for a global catastrophic event is NOT high at all, nor is the consensus that we can do anything about it either. Too much is UNKNOWN, as stated in the OP. We've been seeing and hearing the alarmists predicting Armageddon for much of the past 40 years, yet NOTHING that they said was going to happen has occurred. The computer models have ALL been wrong, and much of the research has been discredited. Therefore, taking extremely costly precautions would be unwarranted and ridiculous.

Which is not to say it isn't something to keep an eye on and try to find less extreme measures that can be implemented without undue impact on everybody. Looks to me like we're in a global warming pause for the past 20 years or so, if not an actual cooling period. So, IMHO everybody needs to calm down and approach the issue with some rational ideas.

 

[oldsoul]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

 

[forkup]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Did I say the consensus is complete? Thousands of scientists have their DOUBTS? Considering there are hundreds of thousands scientists that study it directly or indirectly, the statement that the consensus is high is correct. Not only that but again. In risk impact assessment the higher the POSSIBLE impact, the more precautions you take. In this case the impact is extreme.
- I'll give you a working example. Nuclear Power plants have redundancies upon redundancies upon redundancies. It's not that they expect anything to go wrong, but they acknowledge that if it would go wrong. The potential impact would be so severe, that not taking extreme precautions is deemed irresponsible. Do you disagree with that?
In the case of climate change we are talking, long term irreversible and cataclysmic consequences.
So what is the reasoning to not wanting precautions?

 

[DandyDonovan]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Did I say the consensus is complete? Thousands of scientists have their DOUBTS? Considering there are hundreds of thousands scientists that study it directly or indirectly, the statement that the consensus is high is correct. Not only that but again. In risk impact assessment the higher the POSSIBLE impact, the more precautions you take. In this case the impact is extreme.
- I'll give you a working example. Nuclear Power plants have redundancies upon redundancies upon redundancies. It's not that they expect anything to go wrong, but they acknowledge that if it would go wrong. The potential impact would be so severe, that not taking extreme precautions is deemed irresponsible. Do you disagree with that?
In the case of climate change we are talking, long term irreversible and cataclysmic consequences.
So what is the reasoning to not wanting precautions?

Your example is faulty, because in the case of nuclear power plants we KNOW what could go wrong, and therefor know what redundancies to take , and we know what the results are if specific things go wrong.

IOW they plan for the known, not the unknown.

And here is what I know about man made climate change. If the rich people who are telling the rest of us how dangerous we are to the climate TRULY believed what they are peddling. The would stop living in energy consuming mansions and flying around in private jets. For God sakes, George Bush lives in a more energy efficient climate friendly house than Al Gore. Let that sink in.

 

[jwoodie]

Any Climate Change alarmist who opposes nuclear power is a fraud.

 

[Olde Europe]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

1.) It is entirely clear that the catastrophic rise in carbon in the atmosphere from 280 (pre-industrial) to over 400ppm today is due to human activity, the burning of fossil fuel in particular.

2. There is near universal consensus among publishing climate scientists that the rise in ocean and surface temperatures is due to the rise in CO₂.

3. The general outlines of the trajectory we are on is clear, apart from the exact point when feedback loops the rising temperatures are kicking off, generating runaway climate change.

4. Far too few people are convinced that decarbonizing our entire way of life (particularly in the industrialized West) is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe, even though that is absolutely required.

5. With respect to them the only question is, who is paying these people to say what they are saying?

6. The question is, is humankind smart enough, do we care enough for our offspring, to pay but a small price now to avoid a catastrophic price to be paid later.

 

[forkup]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Did I say the consensus is complete? Thousands of scientists have their DOUBTS? Considering there are hundreds of thousands scientists that study it directly or indirectly, the statement that the consensus is high is correct. Not only that but again. In risk impact assessment the higher the POSSIBLE impact, the more precautions you take. In this case the impact is extreme.
- I'll give you a working example. Nuclear Power plants have redundancies upon redundancies upon redundancies. It's not that they expect anything to go wrong, but they acknowledge that if it would go wrong. The potential impact would be so severe, that not taking extreme precautions is deemed irresponsible. Do you disagree with that?
In the case of climate change we are talking, long term irreversible and cataclysmic consequences.
So what is the reasoning to not wanting precautions?

Your example is faulty, because in the case of nuclear power plants we KNOW what could go wrong, and therefor know what redundancies to take , and we know what the results are if specific things go wrong.

IOW they plan for the known, not the unknown.

And here is what I know about man made climate change. If the rich people who are telling the rest of us how dangerous we are to the climate TRULY believed what they are peddling. The would stop living in energy consuming mansions and flying around in private jets. For God sakes, George Bush lives in a more energy efficient climate friendly house than Al Gore. Let that sink in.

-In the case of a nuclear power plant we don't know exactly what could go wrong. Is it a complete meltdown or not? What's the wind direction? How many people are in the area? That's why you plan for the worst case. In climate change we have knowledge. We have a pretty good idea what the amount of ice is on the planet, we therefor know what area's are at risk by simple topographic maps. We know how much the earth temperature is rising by simply using thermometers. We know a whole lot of stuff. The fact that we don't know everything in no way absolves us from planning for the worst case.
- To use another example a bit less abstract. If a hurricane is heading to make landfall in Florida, is it prudent to NOT board up your house and stay instead of evacuating, simply because there's a chance it'll change course?
-As for your Gore anecdote. They call this an appeal to hypocrisy, and it's a logical fallacy.Appeal to hypocrisy

 

[flacaltenn]

1.) It is entirely clear that the catastrophic rise in carbon in the atmosphere from 280 (pre-industrial) to over 400ppm today is due to human activity, the burning of fossil fuel in particular.

It's not "carbon" in the atmosphere.. It's CO2.. The term carbon was inserted into the public dialogue on CC to purposely muddy the boundaries between CO2 and pollution.. Any molecule coming out your lungs at 4 to 5 times the atmospheric concentration is NOT pollution...

And there's very little certainty about the actual source of the CO2 since what NATURE puts into the atmosphere every year is TWENTY TIMES what man puts up.. Nature also "sinks" almost all of it's emissions in the land and oceans annually (as well as a significant of the anthropogenic fraction) resulting in a fairly BALANCED CO2 "cycle".. However, man is adding that 2% or 3% fraction to the annual cycle..

2. There is near universal consensus among publishing climate scientists that the rise in ocean and surface temperatures is due to the rise in CO₂.

Not the ENTIRE temperature rise. Some of it is natural variability.. You could say MOST of it or the larger fraction of the temp rise.. But the sum total is only a 0.6DegC rise in your lifetime. What IS generally agreed on is that a DOUBLING of CO2 in the atmosphere will produce about a 1.1DegC rise in surface temperature. That is a calculation from chemistry and physics and does NOT include the THEORIES that ride the CC crazy train about catastrophic "net positive feedbacks" or "runaway warming effects" or "trigger temperatures" that would make the problem completely unsolvable.

I'm totally aboard the acceptance that man's emissions do HAVE an effect on surface temp, I've never consumed the koolaid about the CATASTROPHIC predictions that the media and political leaders have severely over-hyped.

It's those latter CC "theories" about the CATASTROPHIC effects of anthropogenic emissions that are getting killed off. Because over the 30 years of this rugby match, all the predictions and projections have been constantly revised DOWNWARD to the point where all those "imagined" effects have been largely put back on the shelf..

 

[task0778]

Here is the prose of reality; there is no compelling evidence to suggest that the source of climate change is man-made. There are other persuasive causes such as the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s reflectivity, could affect temperatures on this planet.

As the argument goes, if the United States would replace internal combustion engines with batteries and shut down oil refineries and coal-fired power plants, we would save the planet. There is a reason they keep emphasizing the United States. Other countries, especially the major polluters such as Russia, China, and Eastern Europe, have no intention of following this destructive path. Every single week of the year, China brings into service a new, large coal-fired plant that has practically no environmental controls and subsequently contributes to 30 percent of the air pollution in Los Angeles. By taking this position, the supporters of global warming have demonstrated that they selectively collect, analyze, and utilize scientific data to support their ideological position. Otherwise, they might have found that the theory of global warming is full of holes.

It has been well documented that the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia around 2200 B.C. was brought about by a catastrophic rise in temperatures and subsequent droughts. At the same time, the European continent was being subjected to a prolonged ice age. The supporters of Global Warming might also be surprised to learn that the Romans grew grapes in northern England. Hence, temperatures on this planet were a lot higher then. Given the level of erudition of the advocates of global warming and some of our elected officials, we should wonder whether they are aware that neither the Bronze Age civilizations nor the Romans had cars, oil refineries, or coal-fired power plants.

Recent fires in Southern California demonstrated that Mother Nature can produce in several days more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the region in a whole year. California’s yearly fires have been known since the Spanish conquistadors first visited it in 1542. If we add volcanoes spitting into the air millions of tons of CO2 every year for millions of years, then according to the proponents’ theory, we should already be living on small islands surrounded by an ocean of melted Arctic ice.

Moreover, the supporters might be amazed to learn that only 0.04 percent of Earth’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which is part of the air we breathe. Plants make themselves from it and, as every sixth-grader in China or Russia knows, by way of photosynthesis they produce oxygen. Therefore, if not for CO2 there would not be O2 and subsequently no life on Earth.

There is no solid evidence CO2 is having an impact on the Earth’s temperature one way or the other and no amount of scientific falsehood can make it so.

The inconvenient truth is that the climate change movement has nothing to do with climate and everything with making money, ideology, and degrading America’s industrial capabilities.

Climate change, whether warming or cooling, justifies the unlimited expenditure, strangles oil and gas production and coal mining, and places power generation under tight government control. It also makes charlatans like Al Gore very rich through exchanges of greenhouse gas emissions. Like medieval priests, modern swindlers sell indulgences that forgive carbon sins making money literally out of thin air, by underwriting the sale of “carbon credits” that industries, utilities, and other entities must purchase for the “right” to operate facilities that produce industrial emissions.

https://www.americanthinker.com/art...s_and_the_prose_of_reality.html#ixzz5c2XQ8ykf

In short, there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the rise in CO2 is imminently near catastrophic, or that the rise is entirely man-made. All this talk about universal consensus among climate scientists that catastrophic AGW is almost upon us is BS. The only report or survey of such a consensus was done more than 10 years ago and was widely debunked and discredited. For more than 30 years we have been told of computer models that tell us of the coming calamity, yet NOT ONE OF THEM has proven to be accurate. NOT EVEN CLOSE. For more than 30 years we have heard claims that Florida will be under water and the arctic ice will be totally gone years ago, which of course is BS.

I think any honest scientist will say that over the long haul the global temperatures have been rising, as they have ever since the last ice age, but they aren't going to say that a catastrophe is imminent. They will say that SOME of that rise could be and even is likely to be anthropogenic, but any reputable scientist is not going to say it's the only cause or even the major cause of GW, there's just too much that we don't know. There's nothing wrong with monitoring the situation, and nothing wrong with trying to find cost-effective ways to clean up our air and water, but to spend hundreds of billions of our tax dollars on projects like high-speed rail and companies like Solyndra and Evergreen that only serve to enrich Democratic benefactors, sorry but that's total BS. And on top of that to send hundreds of billions of our tax dollars overseas to other countries due to the Paris Accords is ridiculously stupid. It's a scam; don't fall for it.

 

[flacaltenn]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A consensus needs ONE SPECIFIC question to be answered. GW/CC is too much a complex interdisciplinary science to be DEFINED or polled on a single question.. So the debate about a consensus is PURELY a "low knowledge" media and public fabrication..

You can have ALMOST a consensus on the question of "Is the planet warming and man's emission play a role in that effect" --- But there are at least a couple dozen MORE IMPORTANT questions about the MAGNITUDE and course of that warming or the ability of the modeling to even accurately MAKE projections 30 or 100 years out.

Point is -- There is no immediate public policy crisis if the RATE of warming continues to be 0.014DegC per year. That's what it is currently from the 35 year satellite record. That's 0.14DegC per decade or 1.4DegC per century.

We can't even fathom the technology disruptions that might occur over 50 years making any current efforts useless. And that number from the satellite record is MUCH CLOSER to the BASIC chemistry/physics estimates for a doubling of CO2 in the atmos than it is to ANY of the distorted, fear-inducing, early 1980/90s propaganda campaign for the CATASTROPHIC version of GW/CC.. We have not even REACHED the FIRST doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial Revolution. And since the "power" of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASES exponentially with concentration, you need TWICE the concentration for the NEXT doubling to get the same 1.1DegC surface effect of the LAST doubling...

 

[Olde Europe]

Recent fires in Southern California demonstrated that Mother Nature can produce in several days more greenhouse gases than all the cars in the region in a whole year. California’s yearly fires have been known since the Spanish conquistadors first visited it in 1542. If we add volcanoes spitting into the air millions of tons of CO2 every year for millions of years, then according to the proponents’ theory, we should already be living on small islands surrounded by an ocean of melted Arctic ice.

The noted climate scientist, who goes by the name of "American Thinker", doesn't know that for every natural source of CO₂ there is a CO₂ sink of comparable size, which is why, during the pre-industrial era, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere held pretty stable at about 280ppm. And yes, that includes wildfires, and even volcanic emissions. Humankind adds a few percent to the natural carbon emissions, some of it absorbed by natural sinks (the oceans, mostly, hence the oceans became more acidic, which adds another item to the climate catastrophe), most not. Over the years, these few percent (with no sink) added up to the rise to 400ppm.

Not knowing that very basic fact, or lying to his audience about it, alone should make "American Thinker" persona non grata in any debate about climate change.

 

[flacaltenn]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Did I say the consensus is complete? Thousands of scientists have their DOUBTS? Considering there are hundreds of thousands scientists that study it directly or indirectly, the statement that the consensus is high is correct. Not only that but again. In risk impact assessment the higher the POSSIBLE impact, the more precautions you take. In this case the impact is extreme.
- I'll give you a working example. Nuclear Power plants have redundancies upon redundancies upon redundancies. It's not that they expect anything to go wrong, but they acknowledge that if it would go wrong. The potential impact would be so severe, that not taking extreme precautions is deemed irresponsible. Do you disagree with that?
In the case of climate change we are talking, long term irreversible and cataclysmic consequences.
So what is the reasoning to not wanting precautions?

Your example is faulty, because in the case of nuclear power plants we KNOW what could go wrong, and therefor know what redundancies to take , and we know what the results are if specific things go wrong.

IOW they plan for the known, not the unknown.

And here is what I know about man made climate change. If the rich people who are telling the rest of us how dangerous we are to the climate TRULY believed what they are peddling. The would stop living in energy consuming mansions and flying around in private jets. For God sakes, George Bush lives in a more energy efficient climate friendly house than Al Gore. Let that sink in.

-In the case of a nuclear power plant we don't know exactly what could go wrong. Is it a complete meltdown or not? What's the wind direction? How many people are in the area? That's why you plan for the worst case. In climate change we have knowledge. We have a pretty good idea what the amount of ice is on the planet, we therefor know what area's are at risk by simple topographic maps. We know how much the earth temperature is rising by simply using thermometers. We know a whole lot of stuff. The fact that we don't know everything in no way absolves us from planning for the worst case.
- To use another example a bit less abstract. If a hurricane is heading to make landfall in Florida, is it prudent to NOT board up your house and stay instead of evacuating, simply because there's a chance it'll change course?
-As for your Gore anecdote. They call this an appeal to hypocrisy, and it's a logical fallacy.Appeal to hypocrisy

And yet, leading climate scientists and environmentalists have strongly SUPPORTED a new nuclear energy build-out that WOULD drastically reduce the "carbon footprint" of industrialized nations. In fact the "chief activist in a labcoat" James Hansen who STARTED the pant-crapping predictions of catastrophic GW is on record saying that --- "if you believe that wind/solar is gonna solve the CO2 emissions problem -- you probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus"... Ocassio-Cortez needs to read that...

Fact is -- it's a test to see if the left-leaning eco-warriors are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warning. Which seems to be clearly the case. Telling us --- that they intuitively don't FEAR those failed predictions of planetary doom EVEN IF --- it could be STOPPED in 5 years with a nuclear power initiative.

 

[Tax Man]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

1.) It is entirely clear that the catastrophic rise in carbon in the atmosphere from 280 (pre-industrial) to over 400ppm today is due to human activity, the burning of fossil fuel in particular.

2. There is near universal consensus among publishing climate scientists that the rise in ocean and surface temperatures is due to the rise in CO₂.

3. The general outlines of the trajectory we are on is clear, apart from the exact point when feedback loops the rising temperatures are kicking off, generating runaway climate change.

4. Far too few people are convinced that decarbonizing our entire way of life (particularly in the industrialized West) is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe, even though that is absolutely required.

5. With respect to them the only question is, who is paying these people to say what they are saying?

6. The question is, is humankind smart enough, do we care enough for our offspring, to pay but a small price now to avoid a catastrophic price to be paid later.

Considering all the industrialized nations except America are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. That in and of itself should say quite a lot about the danger.

 

[forkup]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A consensus needs ONE SPECIFIC question to be answered. GW/CC is too much a complex interdisciplinary science to be DEFINED or polled on a single question.. So the debate about a consensus is PURELY a "low knowledge" media and public fabrication..

You can have ALMOST a consensus on the question of "Is the planet warming and man's emission play a role in that effect" --- But there are at least a couple dozen MORE IMPORTANT questions about the MAGNITUDE and course of that warming or the ability of the modeling to even accurately MAKE projections 30 or 100 years out.

Point is -- There is no immediate public policy crisis if the RATE of warming continues to be 0.014DegC per year. That's what it is currently from the 35 year satellite record. That's 0.14DegC per decade or 1.4DegC per century.

We can't even fathom the technology disruptions that might occur over 50 years making any current efforts useless. And that number from the satellite record is MUCH CLOSER to the BASIC chemistry/physics estimates for a doubling of CO2 in the atmos than it is to ANY of the distorted, fear-inducing, early 1980/90s propaganda campaign for the CATASTROPHIC version of GW/CC.. We have not even REACHED the FIRST doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial Revolution. And since the "power" of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASES exponentially with concentration, you need TWICE the concentration for the NEXT doubling to get the same 1.1DegC surface effect of the LAST doubling...

This is my problem here. Firstly my premise and I believe that of the OP is not trying to discuss if there is global warming or if the threat is severe enough. It's, if being uncertain of global warming and it's severity absolves humanity of the need to act on it like both are certain?
Second, you first knock the consensus argument, and then concede that there is a consensus about the main assertion.
- I do want to ask you a few questions. First you gave a few statistical numbers. Can you please source them? And since you seem to be making the argument that the consequences won't be severe, why is it that California for instance is getting more, and more severe fires to give a very blatant example?

 

[flacaltenn]

The noted climate scientist, who goes by the name of "American Thinker", doesn't know that for every natural source of CO₂ there is a CO₂ sink of comparable size, which is why, during the pre-industrial era, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere held pretty stable at about 280ppm.

There's one of the public misconceptions of CC science that has been allowed to prevail.. NOTHING is steady about the Earth's climate system.. All of the ancient proxy work on temperature and CO2 produces nothing but a running average of those metrics. The proxies like ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells are NOT thermometers or CO2 detectors capable of great temporal (time) or spatial (world distribution) accuracy..

This is largely because of attempts to divine ancient climates on a "whole earth basis" with studies that use only 70 or 100 samples to cover the entire planet. There is not the accuracy temporaly or spatially to SEE the variance of CO2 or temperature for any events UNDER HUNDREDS of years long. Our little 1degC blip 100 years wouldn't even be VISIBLE on that type of "instrument"..

HOWEVER, if you LOOK at INDIVIDUAL proxies, like JUST the Greenland ice cores, you WILL see LARGE temperature variations in both CO2 and temperature going back a couple thousand years...

As an example, ice cores from Greenland have much BETTER temporal resolution than Antarctica because Antarctica is a desert in terms of annual precipt. So the time scale for Greenland preserves more variability on an annual/decadal slice of ice.. And if you look at HI RESOLUTION studies of Greenland ice (thin slices over less than 4000 years) you WILL SEE a LOT of rapid transitions and magnitudes of surface temp...

 

[forkup]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Did I say the consensus is complete? Thousands of scientists have their DOUBTS? Considering there are hundreds of thousands scientists that study it directly or indirectly, the statement that the consensus is high is correct. Not only that but again. In risk impact assessment the higher the POSSIBLE impact, the more precautions you take. In this case the impact is extreme.
- I'll give you a working example. Nuclear Power plants have redundancies upon redundancies upon redundancies. It's not that they expect anything to go wrong, but they acknowledge that if it would go wrong. The potential impact would be so severe, that not taking extreme precautions is deemed irresponsible. Do you disagree with that?
In the case of climate change we are talking, long term irreversible and cataclysmic consequences.
So what is the reasoning to not wanting precautions?

Your example is faulty, because in the case of nuclear power plants we KNOW what could go wrong, and therefor know what redundancies to take , and we know what the results are if specific things go wrong.

IOW they plan for the known, not the unknown.

And here is what I know about man made climate change. If the rich people who are telling the rest of us how dangerous we are to the climate TRULY believed what they are peddling. The would stop living in energy consuming mansions and flying around in private jets. For God sakes, George Bush lives in a more energy efficient climate friendly house than Al Gore. Let that sink in.

-In the case of a nuclear power plant we don't know exactly what could go wrong. Is it a complete meltdown or not? What's the wind direction? How many people are in the area? That's why you plan for the worst case. In climate change we have knowledge. We have a pretty good idea what the amount of ice is on the planet, we therefor know what area's are at risk by simple topographic maps. We know how much the earth temperature is rising by simply using thermometers. We know a whole lot of stuff. The fact that we don't know everything in no way absolves us from planning for the worst case.
- To use another example a bit less abstract. If a hurricane is heading to make landfall in Florida, is it prudent to NOT board up your house and stay instead of evacuating, simply because there's a chance it'll change course?
-As for your Gore anecdote. They call this an appeal to hypocrisy, and it's a logical fallacy.Appeal to hypocrisy

And yet, leading climate scientists and environmentalists have strongly SUPPORTED a new nuclear energy build-out that WOULD drastically reduce the "carbon footprint" of industrialized nations. In fact the "chief activist in a labcoat" James Hansen who STARTED the pant-crapping predictions of catastrophic GW is on record saying that --- "if you believe that wind/solar is gonna solve the CO2 emissions problem -- you probably still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus"... Ocassio-Cortez needs to read that...

Fact is -- it's a test to see if the left-leaning eco-warriors are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warning. Which seems to be clearly the case. Telling us --- that they intuitively don't FEAR those failed predictions of planetary doom EVEN IF --- it could be STOPPED in 5 years with a nuclear power initiative.

You already touched on not being able to predict future scientific developments, yet you seem to be perfectly willing to dismiss renewable energy sources? Seems contradictory to me.
Anyways, We've had nuclear power stations for about 60 years. In that time 3 major nuclear accidents have occurred. Not counting anything military. That's not a great track record considering the consequences of a calamity with that power source. I do however agree that it's probably preferable to the other non-renewable energy sources. In the end though nuclear is not the solution.

 

[flacaltenn]

the consensus of this event actually happening is high

False. Thousands of SCIENTISTS are not so sure.

"In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”"
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A consensus needs ONE SPECIFIC question to be answered. GW/CC is too much a complex interdisciplinary science to be DEFINED or polled on a single question.. So the debate about a consensus is PURELY a "low knowledge" media and public fabrication..

You can have ALMOST a consensus on the question of "Is the planet warming and man's emission play a role in that effect" --- But there are at least a couple dozen MORE IMPORTANT questions about the MAGNITUDE and course of that warming or the ability of the modeling to even accurately MAKE projections 30 or 100 years out.

Point is -- There is no immediate public policy crisis if the RATE of warming continues to be 0.014DegC per year. That's what it is currently from the 35 year satellite record. That's 0.14DegC per decade or 1.4DegC per century.

We can't even fathom the technology disruptions that might occur over 50 years making any current efforts useless. And that number from the satellite record is MUCH CLOSER to the BASIC chemistry/physics estimates for a doubling of CO2 in the atmos than it is to ANY of the distorted, fear-inducing, early 1980/90s propaganda campaign for the CATASTROPHIC version of GW/CC.. We have not even REACHED the FIRST doubling of CO2 in the atmos since the Industrial Revolution. And since the "power" of CO2 to warm the surface DECREASES exponentially with concentration, you need TWICE the concentration for the NEXT doubling to get the same 1.1DegC surface effect of the LAST doubling...

This is my problem here. Firstly my premise and I believe that of the OP is not trying to discuss if there is global warming or if the threat is severe enough. It's, if being uncertain of global warming and it's severity absolves humanity of the need to act on it like both are certain?
Second, you first knock the consensus argument, and then concede that there is a consensus about the main assertion.
- I do want to ask you a few questions. First you gave a few statistical numbers. Can you please source them? And since you seem to be making the argument that the consequences won't be severe, why is it that California for instance is getting more, and more severe fires to give a very blatant example?

I knock the simplistic idea that a consensus on ONE QUESTION (a fairly benign one) is the ENTIRE DEBATE. We can all agree that the Earth is warming.. (I do) and that man has some effect on that (I do) -- but it doesn't tell you whether to snooze and change the channel or PANIC AND SCREAM AND RUN.

Because if there's NO consensus from the climate scientists on whether their TOOLS (like the modeling that makes 40 or 100 year predictions is ANY GOOD for that purpose --- regardless of the stupid general consensus that I agreed to above -- we have no policy guidance to act on..

And climate scientists DON'T all agree on the efficiency and accuracy of the models when you ask them that question.. From the most comprehensive survey OF Climate scientists made BY climate scientists (Bray and von Storch -- 2012 thru 2017) here that opinion is.. The vast MAJORITY of them don't have great faith in their models for climate prediction..

As for the Cal fires, that's leaping WAY AHEAD of determining "how frightened" anyone should be about the 0.6DegC increase in GLOBAL temperature that's occurred in your lifetime. Lots of stuff about that ONE NUMBER that gets bantied about..

First -- trying to ASSESS something as complex as the Earth's climate system WITH ONE DAMN NUMBER is a little arrogant. For instance, because that's a WORLD measurement, it says little about the many different climate zones that this planet actually has. This stupid single GLOBAL number leads the public to believe that's what THEY have experienced. When in fact, the Arctic accounts for almost 40% of that planetary warming. WHY? because a "little" extra Greenhouse "blanket" over the Arctic, has a MUCH LARGER temperature change. (It's called Climate sensitivity and is another complex variable that the public version of CC science treats as static constant for the ENTIRE planet -- but it's neither a constant or static)..

Fires, droughts, floods are forever in the history of Cali. Measuring WHY they seem to worse has more answers than JUST "global warming".. It's not possible to determine a 0.5deg shift in mean from the larger NATURAL VARIANCE on temp. Most places in the world have avg temps that VARY by +/- 12 or 15 degrees by DAY (over previous years) or +/- 2 or 3 degrees by SEASON (over previous years). So have some perspective on assigning blame because of 50 year shift of 0.5 degree..