OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

[rustysi]

I stopped reading somewhere around page 2. All I can say is I have great feelings of sadness for my grandchildren.

[MakeeLearn]

The only real solution to the impact of people on the earth's climate is less people.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Save the planet - kill yourself.

[MakeeLearn]

...

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Save the planet - kill yourself.

One person killing at least 2 others would have greater results.

[Elessar2]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

"....your gullibility..."

"....don't cut corners..."

"....take time to properly evaluate where you get your information from...."

Comments like those, added to those made by others today and yesterday, make my point. There is a lack of respect for those who disagree. That lack borders, at times, on contemptuousness.

I've contributed to this conversation probably more than anyone, and it really hasn't been a good one. I apologize for igniting or helping ignite a divisive topic.

I'll just point out that you were using the terms "cult-like" & "group think" early on in the thread.

[MakeeLearn]

...

[MakeeLearn]

http://grimstad.uia.no/puls/climatechan ... 8nns02.htm

[DanSez]

Oh, so close to the truth...
Let me fix this for you.

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff
Global warming denial is not a science, it is an industry, being run by people whose sole goal it is to make money.

We all know who this industry is.
The same ones willing to shake hands and get in bed with oligarchs and dictators around the world to insure profits for their stock holders.

[danlongman]

Here is a very simple explanation of some of the things happening.
This is not based on models or projections. Almost of of this
information is provided from records. The phenomena mentioned and
the events mentioned are all part of historical record. It has
already happened... for those who say that nothing unusual is going
on. Since most weather effects lag behind the forcing factors by
years or even decades this trend would continue for some time even
if everything stopped right this minute.

As the President, Mr. T., has told us climate change is a hoax made
up by the Chinese to trick Americans into turning off their own economy.


Global Warming
Global Warming Science

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
Contents

Unprecedented warming
Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2
Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)
Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality
Solutions within our reach

Unprecedented warming

Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, and especially in this century.

Every single year since 1977 has been warmer than the 20th century average, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001, and 2016 being the warmest year on recorded history. A study from 2016 found that without the emissions from burning coal and oil, there is very little likelihood that 13 out of the 15 warmest years on record would all have happened.

Human fingerprints.

As any farmer can tell, the natural patterns of climate have been altered.

We know that warming—and cooling—has happened in the past, and long before humans were around. Many factors (called “climate drivers”) can influence Earth’s climate—such as changes in the sun’s intensity and volcanic eruptions, as well as heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

But, what’s causing today’s unprecedented warming — are humans part of the cause?

Scientists have devised different methods to answer this question. Meteorologists and oceanographers compare the climate patterns they observe with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes, and they can also attribute the proportion of those changes to human activities.

The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and on the Earth’s surface.

Scientists agree that today’s warming is primarily caused by humans putting too much carbon in the atmosphere, like when we choose to extract and burn coal, oil, and gas, or cut down and burn forests.

Scientists have gathered evidence and have improved their methods for teasing apart natural and human factors. Today scientists have very high confidence about human-caused global average surface temperature increase – a key climate indicator. They have reported on their growing confidence through successive climate assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2

Carbon dioxide concentrations.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main heat-trapping gas largely responsible for most of the average warming over the past several decades.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased dramatically, from a pre-industrial era (AD 1000 – 1750) concentration of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to today's 400 ppm.

Scientists warned for years about this dangerous threshold, but with the accelerated pace of emissions the question changed from whether we would reach CO2 concentrations above 400ppm to when.

The Arctic reached 400 ppm in 2012. In 2013 the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii recorded more than 400ppm. In March 2015 global averages reached this threshold, and in September 2016 the world reached a point of no-return: CO2 concentration levels are unlikely to dip below 400 ppm again.

Direct Evidence of Fossil Fuel Derived CO2 in the Atmosphere. While the concentration of carbon has increased, the carbon originating from natural sources has decreased.

We know human activities are driving the increase in CO2 concentrations because atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source. Scientists can tease apart how much CO2 comes from natural sources, and how much comes from combusted fossil fuel sources.

Compared to other carbon sources, carbon from fossil fuels has a distinctly different “signature,” essentially the relative amount of heavier or lighter atoms of carbon (technically δ13C). The more negative the δ13C, the higher the proportion of carbon from fossil fuels.

Over the years, δ13C has decreased while the overall amount of CO2 has increased. This information tells scientists that fossil fuel emissions are the largest contributor of CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.
Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as “climate drivers”)

Many natural and human factors (also called drivers) influence the climate.

Emissions from cars and power plants and an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits are examples of "forcings" that drive temperature rise, the first one by trapping heat, and the second one by increasing energy, which translated into heat. Volcanic events and some types of human-made pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols (i.e., tiny particles) into the atmosphere, lower temperature and are examples of forcings that drive decreases in temperature.

A recent study found that “almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing” (meaning human caused drivers).

Human activity drives climate change.

Natural climate drivers include the energy from the sun; aerosols from periodic volcanic eruptions, dust, and salt spray; natural carbon cycle processes like termite mounds in Africa that emit methane, or tiny organisms in the ocean surface that take up carbon dioxide; and variation in snow and ice cover that change how much the Earth’s surface reflects the sun’s energy back into space (referred to as albedo).

History of Climate Drivers: Heat-trapping emissions far outweigh the effects of other drivers acting on Earth’s climate. Volcanic eruptions account for the cooling spikes seen in the graph in 1883 and 1991.

Among natural drivers, a large volcanic eruption can have a sharp cooling influence as it spews tiny particles high into the stratosphere (the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere where weather typically occurs).

The massive explosions from Krakatoa (Indonesia) in 1883 and Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, for example, can be seen as the two largest downward spikes in the volcanic data depicted in the figure to the right. These particles prevented the full energy of the sun from reaching the surface of Earth and created a cooling trend for several years.

Human climate drivers include heat-trapping emissions from burning coal, gas and oil in power plants and cars; cutting down and burning forests; tiny pollution particles (aerosols); black carbon pollution more commonly referred to as soot; and changes in land use that also affects Earth’s albedo.

Fossil fuel burning by humans emits tiny particles in addition to releasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Some particles reflect sunlight back to space (aerosols), similar to the volcanic particles, having a cooling effect.

Other particles such as soot (black carbon) absorb the sunlight and drive temperature rise, leading to local warming of the atmosphere level where the soot particles circulate. Both types of human-created particles lead to a decrease in the amount of the sun’s energy reaching the surface of the Earth.

Very likely, there would have been even more warming in the past 60 years if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.
Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

Some of these climate drivers result in warming and others lead to cooling, but when all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are stacked up and compared to one another, the accumulation of human-released heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is so large that it has very likely swamped other climate drivers over the past half century, leading to observed global warming.

Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate global climate changes under different conditions. These programs use our knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within Earth's atmosphere and oceans and on its land surfaces.

Mathematical models allow scientists to simulate the behavior of complex systems (like climate) and explore how these systems respond to natural and human factors.

When models take into account both natural and human drivers, they better reflect the observed changes in temperature.

For a computer model to accurately project the future climate, scientists must first ensure that it accurately reproduces already observed temperature changes (i.e., they need to test if they work well).

The scientists working on the IPCC assessments have carefully documented observed changes in air temperature, ocean temperature, ice retreat, and sea level rise since the past century. Scientists use climate computer models to compare these observed changes with natural climate drivers and human climate drivers.

The IPCC concluded that “the effects [of greenhouse gases], together with those of other anthropogenic driv­ers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Scientists reached this conclusion after contrasting observed changes to different types of drivers. When climate models include only recorded natural climate drivers, the models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. When the models also include human-induced climate drivers, then they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans. And when all the natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the dramatic accumulation of carbon from human sources is by far the largest climate change driver over the past half century.

Confidence in attribution per type of event.

Over the years, the models of attribution science have become more sophisticated, and, in addition to attributing global warming to human caused emissions, they are also able to determine the contributions of global warming to extreme events (like floods, heat waves, storms, etc).

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released a report analyzing the state of extreme event attribution science. The report showed that scientists can evaluate the effect of climate change on a single extreme event--how human-caused emissions can increase the likelihood of that event to happen.

Although attribution science is clearer for some types of events than for others, it is an important step to provide predictive forecasts of extreme events at longer lead times, reducing risks and improving preparedness.
Solutions within our reach

We are the cause, we are the solution.

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping emissions already present in the atmosphere, some of which (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) last for 100 years or more. But, with aggressive measures to reduce emissions and adapt to those changes we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid truly dangerous warming and provide future generations with a sustainable world.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 calls for a reduction in emissions worldwide enough to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C. We can reach that goal through immediate and sustained action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions like adopting technologies that increase energy efficiency, expanding our use of renewable energy, and slowing deforestation (among other solutions).
Last revised date: August 1, 2017

[pbiggar]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Terrific. Let's roll our eyes at smart people who, in good faith, express a contrary viewpoint. After all, the consensus viewpoint is unassailable and the consequences of not following along too great. We must suppress all contrary thought so we can move forward and solve the problem. All aboard!

This would make a plot for a good novel. Wait, it's already been done. Michael Crichton, a best-selling novelist, climate skeptic, and Harvard graduate, wrote State of Fear about 12 years ago.

Canoerebel - thanks for bring Micheal Crichton into the discussion. He is a fantastic author and science fiction visionary, and was probably a good doctor too. All round smart guy. Bachelor's degree in Biological Anthropology in 1964 and Harvard MD.

While I, and probably you, have spent zero time studying climate change (a very tough problem due to the variables and time scale involved) other smart people have dedicated their lives to doing serious research in this area. Michael Crichton is not one of them - he is an expert in some areas, climate is not one of them. I cannot find a single peer reviewed study by him. I would have no more confidence in this ability to surmise the reasons for a plane crash by examining the wreckage, than I would in his ability to assess why the earth is warming.

If scientific consensus changes to reflect different data, I will defer to the people who know best. Just like if I had cancer and an oncologist suggested a particular chemotherapy regime - I am going to home and read up about because it is good to be informed so I can ask the right questions, but I still going to do the treatment and I will not go with a herbal therapy with some naturopath.

I am happy to change my opinion if the data shows a different conclusion. What would need to be true for you to change yours?

[danlongman]

Michael Crichton...he dead.
It has been my experience that climate change contrarians tend
to get butthurt in serious discussions. Their intellectual feelings get
all hurt and they feel insulted. It is just like when supporters
of the current President have their political acumen and other things
called into question. As so many people continue to fail to comprehend
the difference between weather and climate it is easy to see why we have
this problem. It is viewed as a distant threat for many but it
could well be too late already. Everyone experiences weather and
climate but few know more than the most basic fundamentals about
the how and why of it all.
I know very little about quantum physics. It is not a matter of opinion
nor is it the vast metaphysical realm that some charlatans like to
carry on about. In a discussion of anything except the most fundamental
ideas with someone who had even finished a book about it my ignorance
would be immediately apparent. If I were to challenge this individual
while at the same time insisting that I know what color and breed
Shrodinger's cat was and read an article about Einstein's curiously poor
treatment of women in my girlfriend's magazine I could not be taken seriously.

Science works in certain ways in this time and culture but scientists are
human beings. Misjudgements and misunderstandings happen frequently. There
are very few credible people in the field who are in complete opposition
to the concepts currently in vogue. Those who do generally seem to be known
for that fact alone and nobody would know or care who they were except they
are publicly bucking the ideas currently in vogue. Some but not all have
been openly working for the Energy Industry and various organisations of the
political right. More than one are seen as outright crackpots. Every field
of science has crackpots and most are quickly forgotten. Some overturn things
and become famous.

If you cannot explain the difference in climate between Inuvik and Narvik
in one word - both are at the same latitude - you might need to read some
more about the subject of climate.

[BBfanboy]

Let's not attack Canoerebel for his beliefs. He has read some plausible things and spent a lot of time in the outdoors making his own observations with a qualified forester's eye. I can respect that he is not seeing what others on this board are seeing. Perhaps living in the mountains limits the amount of weather variability he experiences (except for the near-miss from a tornado a few years ago).

At any rate, we cannot carry on a debate without understanding where the other side of the issue is coming from. Rather than jump on any weaknesses in the argument, we should seek to summarize the key points to show we understand what is being proposed to us. Once we confirm with the other person we have heard correctly, we can express our misgivings about certain points while admitting that in this field of thought, there is no absolute truth that everyone can see.

Chances are, no one is going to change their starting position but it is good to know the fears and assumptions of the people who disagree with us.

[danlongman]

I am sorry I should have written more clearly. I am not trying
to abuse Canoerebel. He was IMO incorrect since I am fairly current
on this stuff and it was my life work after all. He was not being
too far out of line and I spoke a little harshly because I run into
this stuff...the same old talking points - all of them really PRATT
(Proven wRong A Thousand Times) - everywhere I go. The ideas are
basically sound bites, easy to remember and many are flat out untrue.
Others are distorted or so old they are meaningless. All it takes is
for some wise guy to say "the models are broken" and a million people
repeat it each day forever. The vast majority of people could not even
determine if a model was "broken" at all much less how and why it is
broken.
The tone of my commentary was largely directed at a different participant
who was giving us all a graphic and hilarious demonstration of the Dunning
Kruger effect. The best thing about the Dunning Kruger Club us when you
are a member you do not know it! Everybody goes there sometime but some
live there always.
One reason I may seem to be over reacting is that many people who know better
have accepted large amounts of money from some very cynical and very aware
people who are trying to wring every nickle out of the economic status quo.
Having been well financed they have launched all of these denialist memes.
Then the same people announce that George Soros is single handedly funding
the entire warmist hoax. Canoerebel put up pictures and some dainty bios
of some famous scientists who do not accept the climate change projections.
Those people are famous because they are just about the only well known people
in the field who deny the science. Some of them have come into prominence only
because the are contrarians. One is a genuine crackpot and another has gone
back and forth so many times nobody knows where she is.
The success of their FUD campaign is demonstrated here where some fundamentally
decent people have repeated disinformation spontaneously and without malice
as soon as the topic came up.
If you want someone to believe you came to your scientific conclusions
independently do not use the Fox News talking points or people will assume
that is where you got them.
It is hard to accept this gracefully. I mean even the USN has expressed genuine
alarm about the urgency of the situation and the lack of action to date. They
have trillions of dollars of irreplaceable infrastructure right at sea level
and they cannot help but accept reality.
Peace and Cheers

[Fishbed]

As much as I love that piece of rock we're all living on, don't you think that taking this discussion somewhere else would be more appropriate?
We're shouting at each other while ignoring the very thing that usually makes us all agree, whichever our political opinions, and the very reason why we're on this forum for. That's pretty much as healthy as going on with the former post about women in the Navy, and ideally it should suffer eventually the same fate. Nobody has any reason, nor motivation, nor justification to shame Canoerebel about his opinion. He is a big guy, he cares about his family's future like anybody else. You think him to be wrong, and he thinks you are too, well big deal, it's democracy and freedom of opinion. But whatever this opinion would be, you know pretty well that you won't solve partisan debates here and now. Especially here.[:o]

This sort of debate, beyond being OT, ends up being toxic and degrades the overall mood and feeling on this forum. Even though you might feel that there's a need or a duty to oppose others' opinion, you'll quickly realize sobering up that nobody wants that here. I didn't come to read Canoerebel's opinion on climate change, I came to read his excellent AAR - and I am pretty sure he didn't come here to get that sort of roasting either. [:(]

So... OP, Mods, how about closing the thread and moving on? [&o]

[sPzAbt. 502]

+1

[Kursk1943]

I enjoy the discussion on the one hand very much, because it demonstrates that the most important (in my view) topic of our times and of future times has finally arrived in the midst of discussion all over the world after many years of neglect. On the other hand I regret it, because it seems to drive a wedge between the forumites. In other forums (as War in the East i.e.) this thread would have been closed after the first few posts by an administrator.
I feel especially sorry, because this is the forum I love most because of the great majority of helpful, friendly, interesting, humorous (sometimes sarcastic)individuals who form it.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on what we have in common about this topic than focusing on what divides us.

[MakeeLearn]

I hate to write a lot, Ive done so much over the years.

It's not really "Climate Change Hoax" that's the core of belief , everyone knows that weather changes and can comprehend the big picture of climate.

"Climate Change Fix Hoax" is the motivation of opposition to "Climate Change Concerns".

I've got a lot of observations on this that would be borderline taboo topics and would track mud across the just cleaned kitchen floor.

You don't have to post it, think to yourself....
Look at the incredible beauty of this world and what is mixed in with that beauty.
Or bring WitPAE into this, what is it that WitPAE paints and how does it apply.

[VPaulus]

Unfortunately the global warming (or if you prefer climate changing) issue is now highly politicized and we all know that we don't allow political threads.
There are other forums out there where you can express your views regarding this important matter.
I'm sorry but I'll have to lock this thread,