My Take On Things

[HikerGuy83]

I don't pay much attention to this topic simply because I don't have the time to sort the fact from the fiction. Additionally, the whole thing suffers from decades of shrill drama and dire predictions that didn't happen (following Katrina, the global warming community said we'd being seeing more of the same on a regular basis....and we didn't).

I see arguments over temperature graphs and who lied and who said what.

I see arguments over sea levels and ice content of glaciers. Data is seemingly disputed (which seems really odd to me) and, of course, conclusions or projections are very ominous on the part of the global warming community. My news feeds are filled with global warming doom.

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

In my estimation, one of the worst things that the global warming community did was to let Al Gore be their spokesperson. Al could have been 100% correct (I don't know how correct he turned out to be), but Al was a politician and a polarizing one at that. He also comes across in a very bad way. So, you take a highly visible career politician and he puts out a film on global warming.

That doesn't work. And it didn't. I hear people rail on it and I ask what was in it and they can't tell me. They just know they didn't like Al Gore and that was it.

What I posted was above (in terms of links) is just a smattering of what is out there.

I recently scanned an article where we are, once again, talking about tipping points.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

'We are hitting climate tipping points,' scientists warn – DW – 07/28/2021 (from 2021)

You also have movies like the Day after that are super dire predictions. Which tend to turn a lot of people off (if this was supposed to be some kind of wake-up call, it failed).

On the other hand, you have a range of reactions from those who don't believe that this is an issue (or not an issue we can deal with).

They include:

1. The scientists are lying.
2. The scientists just want more funding.
3. The economic consequences of doing something are not viable
4. Why do anything if China and India are not going to do something ?

I honestly have not landed on a position.

I am a skeptic (Al Gore, who I detest, didn't help things). But I also know this could be real.
It feels like we are arguing two extremes.....on one hand we need to do do extreme (see below) on the other....there is no crisis.
You would think reasonable people could figure out what the real truth is.

This is what was from one of the articles I cited and represents (in many ways) the approach that gets them labeled "Chicken Little"

Researchers reiterated calls for transformative change, listing three main emergency responses in the immediate term:
Phasing out and eliminating fossil fuels

• Implementing "a significant carbon price"
• Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots

Climate change should be included in core curricula in schools worldwide to raise awareness, the authors said.

Scientists also urged slashing pollutants, stabilizing the human population and switching to plant-based diets.

"We need to stop treating the climate emergency as a standalone issue — global heating is not the sole symptom of our stressed Earth system," said William Ripple, a lead author of the study and professor of ecology at Oregon State University's College of Forestry.

"Policies to combat the climate crisis or any other symptoms should address their root cause: human overexploitation of the planet."

(Cont'd)

 

[HikerGuy83]

I grow concerned that this issue has been politicized to the point we don't really have a path out.

I recall when one of the chief meteorologists at the weather channel wanted to decertify any meteorologist who wasn't on board with climate change.

<b>Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics</b>

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which...

www.epw.senate.gov

In an age of concerns about the surpression of speech, this was not something that went over well. It only caused the other side to dig in.

As I try to read these threads, they (like so many topics) read like light beer commercials (less filling.....tastes great). And nobody is listening.

I mean, I see nothing of serious discussion from our leadership. And if they try to have that discussion, they have to overcome decades of building skepticism. If they want to succceed, they need to change their tone (but I digress).

The truth is that China and India are bringing on new coal fired capacity. Lots of it which is only going to continue to increase CO2. That won't change.

I see nobody discussing adaptation or collaboration in an approach that would bring people together.

I have a lot going on, but I thought I might try to look at this a little closer.

I, honestly, don't know what to believe and I think that is a failure (common to our current system) of communication that is meaningful.

 

[luiza]

You mention MSN four times for News feeds . One huge problem . They are a prime source of Fake News the moment you touch agenda driven issues . And this matter, with the obvious Gates link , turns it into a doubly poisoned chalice .

 

[Concerned American]

Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots

I believe this ^^ is the single most positive solution, but big bucks politicians would rather see a global third world than to attack from that angle.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You mention MSN four times for News feeds . One huge problem . They are a prime source of Fake News the moment you touch agenda driven issues . And this matter, with the obvious Gates link , turns it into a doubly poisoned chalice .

O.K.

I can't dismiss your comment.

But please understand it confirms what I have been saying.

You dismiss them as fake news....probably based on past experience. Heaven knows I have come to be very skeptical of the media on so many things.

But, my problem is that I am unsure of where to turn. I think I represent a lot of people who have it in the back of their minds that there is something going on. Just what it is and it's impact isn't something that is agreed upon. And the ugliness in the conversation tends to push them (and myself) away from the subject altogether.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I believe this ^^ is the single most positive solution, but big bucks politicians would rather see a global third world than to attack from that angle.

O.K.

Thanks.

 

[badger2]

I believe this ^^ is the single most positive solution, but big bucks politicians would rather see a global third world than to attack from that angle.

As just pointed out on the Transformation thread, restoring the Amazon rainforest is more important than patch-work restorations on other continents.

 

[HikerGuy83]

As just pointed out on the Transformation thread, restoring the Amazon rainforest is more important than patch-work restorations on other continents.

O.K.

Can I ask a question. It's a question, not a challenge.

How did you arrive at that conclusion ?

In my simple view, this seems to be about CO2 conversion.

If you think that restoring those forests is important, I assume there is a link. Is that correct ?

Again....serious question. I have no knowledge in this area.

 

[HikerGuy83]

MSN

www.msn.com

Some real dire stuff in there.

Anyone paying attention ?

From the article:

Yale Climate Connections (YCC) also explains why “a couple of degrees makes a profound difference.” Among the effects: In a 3.6 degrees F warming scenario, about 37% of the world’s population will face severe heat waves at least once every five years (which raises the risk of heat-related illness and death).

******************

O.K.

Can they tell us how many will get sick and how many will die.

Temperatures go up and down all the time. Are they more concerned with sustained heat waves ? How long ?

 

[Concerned American]

MSN

www.msn.com

Some real dire stuff in there.

Anyone paying attention ?

From the article:

Yale Climate Connections (YCC) also explains why “a couple of degrees makes a profound difference.” Among the effects: In a 3.6 degrees F warming scenario, about 37% of the world’s population will face severe heat waves at least once every five years (which raises the risk of heat-related illness and death).

******************

O.K.

Can they tell us how many will get sick and how many will die.

Temperatures go up and down all the time. Are they more concerned with sustained heat waves ? How long ?

Growing up in Phoenix, AZ in the 60s, I can tell you that Phoenix is no stranger to triple digits. We weren't allowed to stay inside all day--after breakfast it was go out and play--somehow we survived. I've lived my entire life until retirement in hotter climes--indeed I worked hot steel in 100 degree temps. With the heat of the steel the temps were closer to 130 some days in the summer. Somehow I survived as generations for millennia have. People who are healthy will survive. Those that aren't will perish. It sounds harsh, but it is survival of the fittest. You adapt and overcome or perish. Simple as that.

 

[Crick]

MSN

www.msn.com

Some real dire stuff in there.

Anyone paying attention ?

From the article:

Yale Climate Connections (YCC) also explains why “a couple of degrees makes a profound difference.” Among the effects: In a 3.6 degrees F warming scenario, about 37% of the world’s population will face severe heat waves at least once every five years (which raises the risk of heat-related illness and death).

******************

O.K.

Can they tell us how many will get sick and how many will die.

Temperatures go up and down all the time. Are they more concerned with sustained heat waves ? How long ?

MSN

www.msn.com

Some real dire stuff in there.

Anyone paying attention ?

From the article:

Yale Climate Connections (YCC) also explains why “a couple of degrees makes a profound difference.” Among the effects: In a 3.6 degrees F warming scenario, about 37% of the world’s population will face severe heat waves at least once every five years (which raises the risk of heat-related illness and death).

******************

O.K.

Can they tell us how many will get sick and how many will die.

Temperatures go up and down all the time. Are they more concerned with sustained heat waves ? How long ?

I suggest you have a look at the Nature article linked in your article: Quantifying the human cost of global warming. Quantifying the human cost of global warming - Nature Sustainability. Increasing average global temperatures will increase the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.

Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in multi-day extreme heat events across the United States.

www.epa.gov

 

[HikerGuy83]

I suggest you have a look at the Nature article linked in your article: Quantifying the human cost of global warming. Quantifying the human cost of global warming - Nature Sustainability. Increasing average global temperatures will increase the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves.

Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves | US EPA

This indicator describes trends in multi-day extreme heat events across the United States.

www.epa.gov

O.K. I started reading it. And the first paragraph confirms what I have been saying....nobody's listening:

Despite increased pledges and targets to tackle climate change, current policies still leave the world on course for around 2.7 °C end-of-century global warming1,2,3,4,5 above pre-industrial levels—far from the ambitious aim of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. Even fully implementing all 2030 nationally determined contributions, long-term pledges and net zero targets, nearly 2 °C global warming is expected later this century1,2,5. Calls for climate justice highlight the vital need to address the social injustices driven by climate change6.

***************************************

The last sentence has the phrase "social injustices" in it. I can pretty much guarantee that will shut a lot a lof people down right there (and I am not saying they are wrong in their scientific assessment). What I am saying is they don't listen either.

If they know better, why would they sour the article with a trigger phrase like that.

I can suggest reasons, but I've made my top line point.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I suggest you have a look at the Nature article linked in your article:

I saw this: The costs of climate change are often estimated in monetary terms, but this raises ethical issues.

What are they talking about ? What ethical issues ? They didn't elaborate. And who is violating these ethics ?

Then: Here we express them in terms of numbers of people left outside the ‘human climate niche’—defined as the historically highly conserved distribution of relative human population density with respect to mean annual temperature.

Just what is that supposed to mean ? Does he mean constant distribution ? And "respect to mean annual temperature ? Most reading this will drop it right there. But then, I doubt this is really intended for your average reader. Use this a press conference......

If you read on, it seems that what they are saying is that currently 9% of the worlds population live in areas that are experiencing elevated temperatures (excessive heat is the term they use). They project that will reach 33% by the end of the century.

*******************************

Here I'll state that projections are not a strong point for the climate change community. So why do they continue. If they have data that show 9% have experienced issues already....why not focus on that. That is demonstratable. It's happened. Why screw it up by peering into the crystal ball that has failed so often already (and I get that predictions of global climate are not an exact science, but when you have Al Gore (someone that many don't trust to start) making predictions with exact years....you lose credibility.

Now.....I read further and thought...interesting.

But this isn't an article for the novice or the non-scientific. It also leaves a lot of assumptions on the table. It also uses a lot of terms that you'd have to know in order to understand it. And you'll have to agree....it would take a lot to really understand what these people are saying.

There is no summary table. I attempted (in 5 minutes) to find what you were referencing. I could not.

 

[elektra]

What to believe? I am skeptic on the OP's position, of not having a position.

Seeing is believing, with a bit of knowledge.

What have I seen. Physically seen. I have witnessed the construction of thousands of wind turbines in a small place.
I have read the articles about them in the LA Times, in the late 80's.
I have met people that worked at the sites.

Now why am I concentrating on the solution? Because the solution is the problem. The solution has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Obviously if the solution increases CO2, which they claim is the problem, then the solution is not a solution.

Palm Springs saw wind turbines installed at an explosive rate. Exactly after the government gave millions of dollars to whoever would install wind turbines.

No sooner than they were installed the companies all went bankrupt. Yet, the money they received from the government went into the pockets of investors and CEO's, they all made millions.

The next company bought the project for ten cents on the dollar, a bargain, allowing them to operate the wind farm for a number of years. Then the maintenance kicked in and they went bankrupt. Another company bought the assets, scraped them, and then sold the company. The next company repeated the cycle.

People I have talked to, in Hemet an old book store was ran by a couple, the husband was retired and inspected the sites where the foundations would be placed for the wind turbines. He said they barely listened to his advice and simply put up the foundations wherever they could in order to get that government money. Poor sites did not matter, just build and install as fast as humanly possible.

Thousands of wind turbines, tens of thousands, gone in under 15 years. Wind turbines a short lived, not long term, and at that, in the windiest place in the world the output was to little to make a difference.

Cost, why do they cost so much? Some politicians, advocates for wind turbines, say the cost will be $100 to $200 trillion dollars. Why so much?

Material, wind turbines are huge so they require trillions of dollars to build. The cost is also directly related to the manufacturing of the material by heavy industry so the cost also reflects the amount of CO2 Heavy Industry will emit manufacturing wind turbines.

The trillions of dollars to be spent also reflects how little power one produces and explains why we must build millions, forever.

Fossil fuels and natural resources consumption is increasing as we build more and more and more.

We are also cutting large areas of the Amazon down for the balsa wood in the Turbine blades. No Amazon, no rainforest eating, consuming, that CO2.

A wind turbine requires 1.5 acres of land to be cleared. More trees and plants destroyed. More power lines, more land cleared.

It is just so sad to see the earth destroyed and the rich get rich off the government that then overcharges us, taxes and mandated raises in our electric bills.

Here is less than 1% of the solution, one aspect of the solution. California has steadily imported more electricity ever since they have installed more wind turbines. Wind turbines, they are a failure.

 

[Crick]

I saw this: The costs of climate change are often estimated in monetary terms, but this raises ethical issues.

What are they talking about ? What ethical issues ? They didn't elaborate. And who is violating these ethics ?

Then: Here we express them in terms of numbers of people left outside the ‘human climate niche’—defined as the historically highly conserved distribution of relative human population density with respect to mean annual temperature.

Just what is that supposed to mean ? Does he mean constant distribution ? And "respect to mean annual temperature ? Most reading this will drop it right there. But then, I doubt this is really intended for your average reader. Use this a press conference......

If you read on, it seems that what they are saying is that currently 9% of the worlds population live in areas that are experiencing elevated temperatures (excessive heat is the term they use). They project that will reach 33% by the end of the century.

*******************************

Here I'll state that projections are not a strong point for the climate change community.

They are an excellent point for the climate science community. They are not a strong point for the predictions that AGW deniers frequently claim climate scientists have made.

So why do they continue.

Why shouldn't they? Climate science predicted that as CO2 emissions continue, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would continue to rise. That has come to pass. Climate science predicted that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continued to rise, Earth's average temperature and the ocean's level would continue to rise and that the ocean's average pH would continue to fall. Those have both come to pass.

If they have data that show 9% have experienced issues already....why not focus on that.

Focus how? The point is that it is going to get worse. The point is that pretending it isn't happening or rejecting the science is going to lead to a great deal of suffering.

That is demonstratable. It's happened. Why screw it up by peering into the crystal ball that has failed so often already (and I get that predictions of global climate are not an exact science, but when you have Al Gore (someone that many don't trust to start) making predictions with exact years....you lose credibility.

You have lost credibility by using a strawman fallacy.

Now.....I read further and thought...interesting.

But this isn't an article for the novice or the non-scientific. It also leaves a lot of assumptions on the table. It also uses a lot of terms that you'd have to know in order to understand it. And you'll have to agree....it would take a lot to really understand what these people are saying.

There is no summary table. I attempted (in 5 minutes) to find what you were referencing. I could not.

This was part of YOUR link, not mine. If you are unable to follow the material, the problem is yours.

 

[HikerGuy83]

This was part of YOUR link, not mine. If you are unable to follow the material, the problem is yours.

Thank you for letting me know that you really are not interested in discussing things.

I have made no effort to change your mind or to challenge any data per se.

I have asked why they use this approach when it gets them to where they are (which is the point of my OP)....that nobody is listening to them (and why few people on this board listen to you).

100% of nothing is apparently better than 50% of something.

Keep at it.

I didn't link to this article. If it was linked in one of my links.....that's really not something I am going to be concerned about.

I was more interested in the headlines as a way of showing that they continue to be (IME) sensational.

Have a nice day.

 

[HikerGuy83]

They are an excellent point for the climate science community. They are not a strong point for the predictions that AGW deniers frequently claim climate scientists have made.

Why can't they show, in simple terms, what they mean. An example of what they are discussing would be wonderful.

That might get peoples attention.

Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this thread.

 

[Crick]

Why can't they show, in simple terms, what they mean. An example of what they are discussing would be wonderful.

Research level science often involves advanced and complex topics. And peer reviewed studies published in science journals are not aimed at the lay public. There are other sources that are: Scientific American, Science Digest, Popular Science, New Scientist, etc.

That might get peoples attention.

That could be helpful here, where the topic is a threat to everyone, but that is not generally the aim of science.

Your second sentence makes no sense whatsoever in the context of this thread.

Once again, there is a lot of history around here you've missed. It is a common argument for AGW deniers here to claim that most if not all climate science predictions have failed. Then they rattle off a long list of predictions that no mainstream scientist ever made: no snow again anywhere, the poles completely melted, NYC and the whole state of Florida underwater, etc, etc, etc.

 

[ding]

I don't pay much attention to this topic simply because I don't have the time to sort the fact from the fiction. Additionally, the whole thing suffers from decades of shrill drama and dire predictions that didn't happen (following Katrina, the global warming community said we'd being seeing more of the same on a regular basis....and we didn't).

I see arguments over temperature graphs and who lied and who said what.

I see arguments over sea levels and ice content of glaciers. Data is seemingly disputed (which seems really odd to me) and, of course, conclusions or projections are very ominous on the part of the global warming community. My news feeds are filled with global warming doom.

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

In my estimation, one of the worst things that the global warming community did was to let Al Gore be their spokesperson. Al could have been 100% correct (I don't know how correct he turned out to be), but Al was a politician and a polarizing one at that. He also comes across in a very bad way. So, you take a highly visible career politician and he puts out a film on global warming.

That doesn't work. And it didn't. I hear people rail on it and I ask what was in it and they can't tell me. They just know they didn't like Al Gore and that was it.

What I posted was above (in terms of links) is just a smattering of what is out there.

I recently scanned an article where we are, once again, talking about tipping points.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

'We are hitting climate tipping points,' scientists warn – DW – 07/28/2021 (from 2021)

You also have movies like the Day after that are super dire predictions. Which tend to turn a lot of people off (if this was supposed to be some kind of wake-up call, it failed).

On the other hand, you have a range of reactions from those who don't believe that this is an issue (or not an issue we can deal with).

They include:

1. The scientists are lying.
2. The scientists just want more funding.
3. The economic consequences of doing something are not viable
4. Why do anything if China and India are not going to do something ?

I honestly have not landed on a position.

I am a skeptic (Al Gore, who I detest, didn't help things). But I also know this could be real.
It feels like we are arguing two extremes.....on one hand we need to do do extreme (see below) on the other....there is no crisis.
You would think reasonable people could figure out what the real truth is.

This is what was from one of the articles I cited and represents (in many ways) the approach that gets them labeled "Chicken Little"

Researchers reiterated calls for transformative change, listing three main emergency responses in the immediate term:
Phasing out and eliminating fossil fuels

• Implementing "a significant carbon price"
• Restoring ecosystems such as carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots

Climate change should be included in core curricula in schools worldwide to raise awareness, the authors said.

Scientists also urged slashing pollutants, stabilizing the human population and switching to plant-based diets.

"We need to stop treating the climate emergency as a standalone issue — global heating is not the sole symptom of our stressed Earth system," said William Ripple, a lead author of the study and professor of ecology at Oregon State University's College of Forestry.

"Policies to combat the climate crisis or any other symptoms should address their root cause: human overexploitation of the planet."

(Cont'd)

My take is that they have mistaken a natural climate fluctuation for AGW. They have never placed today's climate in its proper context nor discussed the causes and key learnings from the planet transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet . Or why this present configuration is so conducive to climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty. Which is super odd because it was literally the first time in the planet's 4 billion year history that the north pole experienced extensive glaciation and certainly never both poles at the same time. Lot's of really cool empirical data that is not controversial that really help to frame this discussion in its proper light. But apparently this is way too logical and reasonable of an approach for the climate community to consider. God forbid anyone actually discuss why earth's climate has changed over time to figure out how the earth's climate might change in the future.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I think jc456 had it right.

We need to define the problem so we can start to understand what the solution will look like.