Man Made Climate Change

[rwc101]

this stuff is measurable and is not raw guesswork.

Exactly. It's a chemistry and physics question.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Read the study partner. This one was a bipartisan one that liberals are racing to disprove

See comment #11. It's not bipartisan, it's literally one retired dude in Finland who threw his master's student on as a second author.

 

[noharleyyet]

Bro everyone knows it's hamberder

I sweaterguard, you guys are a broken record on how evil murica is. -Donnie Baker

 

[RockinU]

Read the study partner. This one was a bipartisan one that liberals are racing to disprove

To which study are you referring? The one that started this thread? Not sure it says exactly what you might think it says.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I am old enough at this point that my own memory of what climate was when I was a child vs. today shows significant differences.

The problem here and I see this on the left often is that they claim to have a scientific consensus and then spout things that are not scientifically based.

As far as temperature, I would be shocked if you could notice a difference of 1.4-1.6 degrees averaged throughout the year.

The warming trend according to NASA is "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Another website from 1880 According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880

The climate is averaging an increase at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

Is there a change occurring, absolutely.

Is it time to start working towards a solution, absolutely.

However, alarmists who claim to promote science while stating something anecdotal and/or not backed by science are a problem.

 

[WyoDoug]

The study says climate change has been going on since the end of the ice age or for the last 30,000 years. Earth was not populated enough until modern times for climate change to be man made. Besides that, I am still waiting for proof from the liberal side of this for the "studies" they put out. We already know what happened to the "facts" that Al Gore cited and where his predictions went.

 

[MTGomer]

Eh, that graphic is kind of misleading. It's only for emissions based on transportation

Is that so?
Where do you get that?
If it’s misleading, do you mind posting evidence that US CO2 emissions have been trending up?
There are bumps and spikes and dips, but overall they are trending downward and have been for some time.

Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

Sources of greenhouse gas emissions, inculding electricity production, tranportation, industry, agriculture, and forestry.

www.epa.gov

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@styes

The study says climate change has been going on since the end of the ice age or for the last 30,000 years. Earth was not populated enough until modern times for climate change to be man made. Besides that, I am still waiting for proof from the liberal side of this for the "studies" they put out. We already know what happened to the "facts" that Al Gore cited and where his predictions went.

@Sytes and @noharleyyet I feel like I'm more of an A-hole than a liberal. Can we get a ruling on the field.

 

[RockinU]

The study says climate change has been going on since the end of the ice age or for the last 30,000 years. Earth was not populated enough until modern times for climate change to be man made. Besides that, I am still waiting for proof from the liberal side of this for the "studies" they put out. We already know what happened to the "facts" that Al Gore cited and where his predictions went.

This is what I was talking about earlier: "the liberal side". This discussion has to always devolve into rank politics, with people doggedly defending their "side" against the "others" with whatever scrap of science or statistics that they can scrape up...both "sides" do it, and it's the greatest impediment we face in building a coalition for better stewardship of our world for future generations.

 

[noharleyyet]

@styes


@Sytes and @noharleyyet I feel like I'm more of an A-hole than a liberal. Can we get a ruling on the field.

..why not both

 

[RockinU]

@styes


@Sytes and @noharleyyet I feel like I'm more of an A-hole than a liberal. Can we get a ruling on the field.

I have no sense of, and little interest in your politics, nor do I find you to be any sort of hole. I just appreciate that you seem to put thought into your positions, while at least giving hearing to opposing views, so after further review, the ruling of liberalism on the field is reversed...there will be no timeout charged.

 

[Ben Lamb]

..why not both

Double play stands. Wllm is both a flaming socialist and mega-asshole.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

A useful way for thinking about it that I have used as a discussion piece with others, is to reference the volume of our atmosphere.

We know how large the earth is. We also know roughly the height from earth’s surface that our atmosphere occupies, and the densities of air at different altitudes within that space. We have rough numbers representing the volumes and proportions of gases within that space. It’s not so big and mysterious we can’t quantify it.

We can also quantify, roughly, the artificial alterations we are making to the ratios and volumes of gases within that space through our human activities on earth. From that data we can talk about how the behavior of our atmosphere would change as an insulator, absorber, whatever- compared to what the ratios were previously.

Not trying to make a grand statement about it all, and of course there are many moving parts as it pertains to climate( Sun cycles, ellipse of our orbit, tilt of our axis, etc. ) Rather, just saying this stuff is measurable and is not raw guesswork.

I disagree, allbeit anecdotally. So, take this with a grain of salt.

I have seen metallurgical processes work flawlessly in a lab and then fail miserably in application.

The point is we can have all of this information and replicate it on a micro scale, but when applied to a massive scale it may not be accurate.

There would be a ton of varibilities and math that would have to go to produce an accurate model.

I think it can be done, but if you have ever encountered Microsoft Access and know how much of a pain it is to screw up one variable turning your database into a dumpster fire then you know where I am coming from as skeptical.

I do think that we should minimize the total environmental impact of humans on earth and I think a solution would be nuclear power for electricity and planes (I believe you can make a containment device to house the nuclear material in the event of a crash) and solar for residential. Mass Nuclear transit is another viable option for moving goods and materials via rail (preferably subterranean to minimize wildlife collisions) to solve the transportation issue. Granted all these things are fine and good, but they would require a good bit of money from the government to address the capital costs.

The other issue would be foriegn policy on this. Is the US / EU going to enforce these on the world, if so are they going to pay for it? It is a dynamic that I don't think enough people are considering, due to the fact we cannot get past the fact that it is occurring.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Which is why I wouldn't (and didn't) rely on one study. You ignored the four other studies that took different approaches yet all came to the same conclusion that climate scientists overwhelmingly believe humans have a role in climate change.

The Dangerous Number comes from the book Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics by Joel Best. And references a number that takes on a life of it's own.

I do believe that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, but the use of the 97% number is not taken an accurate representation of scientists on the whole as it is presented.

It might be higher and it might be lower, but the 97% number is a dangerous number.

 

[BigHornRam]

The greenhouse effect is not debatable. Without greenhouse gasses the earth's temperature would be much colder than it actually is. Greenhouse gasses trap heat that would otherwise be lost from earth. Temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation. As we pump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it most certainly does impact the earth's climate

View attachment 110045

I just cannot believe people still want to debate this point, other than they just want to bury their head in the sand. The debate lies on what actions we are going to take

Greenhouse gases have a moderating effect on temperature and is what makes the planet livable. #1 greenhouse gas hands down on the planet is water vapor or clouds.

On what actions we are going to take, I believe technology will hold the key. Technological solutions that will be discovered and refined by societies with the financial means to do so.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think it can be done, but if you have ever encountered Microsoft Access and know how much of a pain it is to screw up one variable turning your database into a dumpster fire then you know where I am coming from as skeptical.

That's why you use SQL like an adult.

Although I would guess most of this work is done in R on linux

 

[TheDudeAbides]

The study says climate change has been going on since the end of the ice age or for the last 30,000 years. Earth was not populated enough until modern times for climate change to be man made. Besides that, I am still waiting for proof from the liberal side of this for the "studies" they put out. We already know what happened to the "facts" that Al Gore cited and where his predictions went.

This is the issue with the left. The Alarmists have the loudest voices. Rather than let the science lead, idiots spout off nonsense that is easily proven false.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

That's why you use SQL like an adult.

I do have a lot of growing up to do.....

 

[RockinU]

This is the issue with the left. The Alarmists have the loudest voices. Rather than let the science lead, idiots spout off nonsense that is easily proven false.

I wouldn't say that this is the issue with the left, I'd say it's the issue with people...the left doesn't have a monopoly on loud alarmists by any measure, or on idiots spouting nonsense.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

Exactly. It's a chemistry and physics question.

The Scope is the issue. It is easy to replicate the results in the lab, but a bigger issue with the volume. Especially with all the different chemical reactions that can go on.

SO2, NOx, CO2, CO, O3,O* etc. There could be millions of chemicals in the atmosphere and trying to figure out how everything reacts and pieces together can be difficult on a macroscopic scale.

We do know certain reactions, but with all of the strata in the air. It can be quite cumbersome and difficult.