Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[shadyJ]

To climate change deniers I would ask: why wouldn't changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere have calamitous effects? Did you think that sending many millions of years worth of stored co2 from the ground into the atmosphere in the the blink of an eye wouldn't have adverse consequences? Also where did you get your degrees in climatology? If you don't have degrees in climatology, how is it that you think you can dispute the consensus of an entire field of scientific study? Is your scholarship in this field so profound that you can dismiss the research of hundreds of doctoral thesis on this matter?

I admit my understanding of climatology isn't very deep, and that experts can be wrong. If I go to an oncologist and he tells me I have cancer, yeah, I might get a second opinion. If I get a second, third, fourth, and tenth opinion, all from qualified oncologists who all have reached the same diagnosis, I would like to think I would be convinced at that point, much as I would dread the news. So what would you call someone who receives the expert opinion of dozens of professionals and then rejects their conclusions because they are inconvenient?

 

[3db]

To climate change deniers I would ask: why wouldn't changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere have calamitous effects? Did you think that sending many millions of years worth of stored co2 from the ground into the atmosphere in the the blink of an eye wouldn't have adverse consequences? Also where did you get your degrees in climatology? If you don't have degrees in climatology, how is it that you think you can dispute the consensus of an entire field of scientific study? Is your scholarship in this field so profound that you can dismiss the research of hundreds of doctoral thesis on this matter?

I admit my understanding of climatology isn't very deep, and that experts can be wrong. If I go to an oncologist and he tells me I have cancer, yeah, I might get a second opinion. If I get a second, third, fourth, and tenth opinion, all from qualified oncologists who all have reached the same diagnosis, I would like to think I would be convinced at that point, much as I would dread the news. So what would you call someone who receives the expert opinion of dozens of professionals and then rejects their conclusions because they are inconvenient?

Whose denying that climate is changing? I'm not. I'm stating there are other factors involved from what I've been reading, not just CO2 emissions. Apparently, there is some political leaning and all kinds of reasons why articles that don't list CO2 emissions as the root cause as being invalid and bogus. This all boils down to money and politics like everything else.

 

[gene]

Whose denying that climate is changing? I'm not. I'm stating there are other factors involved from what I've been reading, not just CO2 emissions. Apparently, there is some political leaning and all kinds of reasons why articles that don't list CO2 emissions as the root cause as being invalid and bogus. This all boils down to money and politics like everything else.

The primary factors for manmade climate change are increases in CO2 levels followed by methane. Both of these chemicals are being released at exponential rates because of human activity. Deforestation is yet again another human activity causing increased CO2 levels and an instability in our ecosystem.

The rates of extinction are much higher today than were predicted just a decade ago as one example:
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/current-extinction-rate-10-times-worse-previously-thought

Our oceans can only absorb so much carbon and they are already showing signs of stress with increased levels of acidity which is also killing off our coral reefs.

The balance of life is certainly in turmoil more so today than in any other modern time of man. I firmly believe we will survive the coming changes in our climate but at a cost of quality of life for all but perhaps the wealthiest people.

 

[gene]

The same arguement can be used to support global warming.

Its not science. Its the corporations who own/control the science to meet their agendas. The biggest purveyor of that was your former president, George W Bush Jr who lied to the public to get support for going into Iraq a 2nd time from the supposed chemical dumps and weapons of mass destruction, etc etc. (not that I supported Sadam Insane). I'm not nieve enough to blindly drink the political Kool-Ade.

Equating the science of climate change with the falsehoods of George W Bush is not only a red herring but completely ridiculous. And BTW, "Global Warming" is the wrong term to describe what is happening. "Global Weirding" or "Climate Change" is more appropriate. The temp changes experienced across the globe are not equal and some regions (like the NE) are and will experience more snowfall during the winter b/c of added moisture build up in the atmosphere but also shorter cold seasons too.

 

[Chu Gai]

It's a good thing there are no falsehoods and transparency in the current administration.

 

[gene]

It's a good thing there are no falsehoods and transparency in the current administration.

Well not really. Both sides of the fence have their laundry list of falsehoods and lack of transparency. But at least the current administration doesn't reject the science.

 

[Chu Gai]

Here's a hypothetical for you Gene. If the left side of the political spectrum was of the persuasion that man's contribution to increasing temperatures was insignificant and that to look towards rapidly curtailing greenhouse gas emissions would result in adverse quality of life for economically challenged people here and around the world, all backed by the best models, because it diverted funds, while the right challenged that with their own models, what position would Obama take?

Sorry for the long sentence.

 

[gene]

Bill Nye is in board with climate whatever and he has some thoughts.

http://campusreform.org/?ID=6397

Here's a hypothetical for you Gene. If the left side of the political spectrum was of the persuasion that man's contribution to increasing temperatures was insignificant and that to look towards rapidly curtailing greenhouse gas emissions would result in adverse quality of life for economically challenged people here and around the world, all backed by the best models, because it diverted funds, while the right challenged that with their own models, what position would Obama take?

Sorry for the long sentence.

First off you're describing a parallel universe where everything is opposite. In that universe, Obama would have a beard and be against: universal health care, birth control for women and the science of climate change. Rush Limbaugh in such a universe would be....nah, he'd still be a babbling moron in any universe

 

[shadyJ]

First off you're describing a parallel universe where everything is opposite. In that universe, Obama would have a beard and be against: universal health care, birth control for women and the science of climate change. Rush Limbaugh in such a universe would be....nah, he'd still be a babbling moron in any universe

goatees make anyone sinister.

 

[gene]

Guys;

Don't miss our LIVE webinar tonight at 9pm EST. You can even ask questions towards the end as long as they don't pertain to politics or climate change

http://templates.webinarfusionpro.com/p/page/i35d

 

[Chu Gai]

A presentation by Richard Lindzen.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf

 

[markw]

Well not really. Both sides of the fence have their laundry list of falsehoods and lack of transparency. But at least the current administration doesn't reject the science.

But it does have a problem understanding basic economics.

 

[Hobbit]

The problem is

Well not really. Both sides of the fence have their laundry list of falsehoods and lack of transparency. But at least the current administration doesn't reject the science.

There's a poster child for any cause out there....

The science is what the science is and the basically there's nary a scientist out there that doesn't believe climate change is happening. Sure, there's some argument about how much of it is due to people verses how much is naturally occurring. Yet, and again, it's really hard nowadays to find credible scientists that don't believe humans have any contribution. While the weather effects we're seeing may be harder to understand and model (we can't even tell the weather tomorrow...), the basic science on how humans can cause climate change is chemistry and physics 101.

I was watching a documentary where they were interviewing extreme religious fundamentalists. It was shocking to me how they could use their computers, wireless everything, smart phones, automobiles, and modern medicine on one hand and on the other they'll say things like the greenhouse effect and CO2 content in the ice caps verses climate change is all make believe and fake science put forth by some liberals with an unbeknownst agenda.

Of course, their is a poster child, or a data point, or an out of context statement, for any cause you want to believe... We had a record cold day for March 27th. Ergo, there can't be global warming. How could there be an ozone problem when Los Angeles has too much? The world is filled with false syllogisms.

 

[TheWarrior]

But it does have a problem understanding basic economics.

Ah, the difference between deficit and debt, and the lack of understanding between them.

3db, I am utterly confused by your stance. You acknowledge climate change IS happening, but because politics is involved, you choose to be apathetic to the situation and only offer cynicism as a solution. Of course this is political. One side is receiving huge sums of money from Oil companies. And when fuel prices are low (because the Saudi Prince publicly acknowledged prices can never be so high again because they ended with a huge surplus from countries that chose to find their own oil) Americans treat it as a Kohl's coupon in the mail and go out and buy the most inefficient vehicle known to man. But I don't know anyone who will deny that burning fossil fuels is 'bad', just varying degrees of how bad.

Perhaps you've heard of the Keystone XL oil pipeline that our President just vetoed? This is a great example of countries finding their own sources. Except, its not our source, we're just going to spend billions to build it and ravage our own lands to build a pipe so Canada can refine SAND for us. So we'd pay a levy from Canada, and from the owners of the pipeline, which I believe was owned in sections and not as an entirety, to make it even more complicated.

Point is, making a conscious effort, every day, to limit what you TAKE from the earth. This 'Mericanized' (tm) 'gotta protect my freedom to burn oil' thing has just got to go. The Freedom of ONE is no longer very relevant, when there are billions with the SAME needs. And California's aquifer's are collapsing because we haven't limited the farmers water usage, so if they ever do get out of a drought (which btw, CA is responsible for 80+% of all produce in this country) they will never be able to retain as much water, despite ever growing demand.

We're all in this together!

 

[gene]

I think it was in the book, SuperFreakOnomics, that it was postulated that a relatively inexpensive way that one could cool the earth would be to burn sulphur, in effect turning it into sulfuric acid and shooting it into the upper atmosphere. The reasoning behind it is that during recent volcanic eruptions, the earth experienced a temporary cooling which was correlated with specific sulfuric acid concentrations in the atmosphere. It's a reversible process since the acid gradually dissipates. Further, the environmental impact was believed to be minimal. The idea here, is that one could do this on a short term basis while other alternatives to fossil fuel were developed - more efficient solar and wind generation, improved batteries, algae, reforestation, or whatever. Call it a buying time thing but one that doesn't have to impose onerous economic penalties.

Now I don't know what the unintended consequences would be. After all it might affect the quality of French wines.

Yes I read this. These are the type of solutions we should be considering as opposed to carbon trading. The reality is we aren't going to be able to curb our CO2 emissions quickly enough to have a meaningful impact. But a solution like this may be something that buys us enough time to develop better technologies. The problem is environmental extremists will likely reject such a solution. I firmly believe there must be real engineering solutions like these to solve our energy and pollution issues. You can't just force people to use less energy. It's not reality.

However, we should be educating people on conservation and making smarter purchasing decisions when it comes to transportation, purchasing foods and services, etc.

 

[gene]

The problem is


There's a poster child for any cause out there....

The science is what the science is and the basically there's nary a scientist out there that doesn't believe climate change is happening. Sure, there's some argument about how much of it is due to people verses how much is naturally occurring. Yet, and again, it's really hard nowadays to find credible scientists that don't believe humans have any contribution. While the weather effects we're seeing may be harder to understand and model (we can't even tell the weather tomorrow...), the basic science on how humans can cause climate change is chemistry and physics 101.

I was watching a documentary where they were interviewing extreme religious fundamentalists. It was shocking to me how they could use their computers, wireless everything, smart phones, automobiles, and modern medicine on one hand and on the other they'll say things like the greenhouse effect and CO2 content in the ice caps verses climate change is all make believe and fake science put forth by some liberals with an unbeknownst agenda.

Of course, their is a poster child, or a data point, or an out of context statement, for any cause you want to believe... We had a record cold day for March 27th. Ergo, there can't be global warming. How could there be an ozone problem when Los Angeles has too much? The world is filled with false syllogisms.

Sadly the most vocal anti-climate change deniers are typically the most ignorant of the science themselves. They don't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Again for those people, I defer them to this video that even a dog can understand

 

[Chu Gai]

To climate change deniers I would ask: why wouldn't changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere have calamitous effects? Did you think that sending many millions of years worth of stored co2 from the ground into the atmosphere in the the blink of an eye wouldn't have adverse consequences? Also where did you get your degrees in climatology? If you don't have degrees in climatology, how is it that you think you can dispute the consensus of an entire field of scientific study? Is your scholarship in this field so profound that you can dismiss the research of hundreds of doctoral thesis on this matter?

There really is no denial that the climate is changing and calling one group deniers does a disservice to the discussion by creating a polarization.of such magnitude, it turns into a shouting match. To that end, please see the link I provided earlier, http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Yes it is by Richard Lindzen and yes he has received $2,500 a day plus expenses for consultation to big oil. He's also tenured at MIT. I don't consider that amount a lot of money. It's a hundred times less than a former secretary of state gets and maybe a 1000 times less than Tony Robbins gets. But the link, while a lot of pages, is an exceedingly rapid read.

Changing the atmospheric conditions does not automatically translate to solely calamitous effects. It can and does permit the creation of certain industries, say wine production that benefit from minor temperature changes. It also likely means that other crops won't do as well and their production will have to shift to other geographical ares. But it's always been like this.

No, I don't have a degree in climatology and neither does a glaciologist, geologist, marine biologist, forensic archaeologist, chemist, physicist, lawyer, politician, or money manager. Some have weighed in on this topic and some may have published on very specific aspects whose findings may be of varied importance or not. So, when you read some website or organization is supported by scientists find out who, what their creds are, and how many. While one's at it, see how this figure of 97% consensus was arrived at.

Doctoral theses are typically narrow in scope. They have to be because these folks are still neophytes, wet behind the ear, and it's time to start doing some real work and gain experience.

I admit my understanding of climatology isn't very deep, and that experts can be wrong. If I go to an oncologist and he tells me I have cancer, yeah, I might get a second opinion. If I get a second, third, fourth, and tenth opinion, all from qualified oncologists who all have reached the same diagnosis, I would like to think I would be convinced at that point, much as I would dread the news. So what would you call someone who receives the expert opinion of dozens of professionals and then rejects their conclusions because they are inconvenient?

Yes, you'll go to other oncologists, maybe some specializing in what your cancer is and who may be involved in unique clinical trials. But you won't go to a gastroenterologist, an internist, a chiropractor. Yet they're all professionals. Being a professional in a tangential field doesn't necessarily qualify you to weigh in with authority on something where your own work is incidental. Well maybe not to that person. Ever had a sh!tty doctor, mechanic, optomotrist, or house inspection? They're professionals.

Understand my friend, I'm not against alternative sources of energy. I'm excited over the advancements in battery technology, solar cell efficiency improvements, algae, and god knows what else. I don't like air pollution but I'm aware that all technological advances have their dark sides. Unintended consequences. No free lunch.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yes I read this. These are the type of solutions we should be considering as opposed to carbon trading. The reality is we aren't going to be able to curb our CO2 emissions quickly enough to have a meaningful impact. But a solution like this may be something that buys us enough time to develop better technologies. The problem is environmental extremists will likely reject such a solution. I firmly believe there must be real engineering solutions like these to solve our energy and pollution issues. You can't just force people to use less energy. It's not reality.

However, we should be educating people on conservation and making smarter purchasing decisions when it comes to transportation, purchasing foods and services, etc.

I'm with you on this Gene. I'll be installing bamboo flooring in our kitchen, mud room, and MBR this year. I'm not sure if that approach with burning sulfur will work, but it seems inexpensive enough and reversible to try. What do you want to bet that if a typhoon strikes a place that's never been hit, they'll blame it on that and seek economic compensation?

 

[Swerd]

… I'm not sure if that approach with burning sulfur will work, but it seems inexpensive enough and reversible to try.

Because sulfur is contained in most coal, and burning it leads to sulfuric acid-laced rain, this idea may encounter severe resistance from those concerned with the effects of acid rain.

A similar objection has emerged to the idea of seeding areas of ocean with iron. A number of ocean labs, scientists and businesses are exploring iron fertilization as a means to sequester atmospheric CO2 in the deep ocean by increasing marine phytoplankton growth. This idea, although it seems (in my unprofessional opinion) much less harmful than burning sulfur, has also encountered fierce resistance from various environmental camps. It has been tried in a number of semi-large trials, but the objections, whether warranted or not, may be enough to stop further tests.

 

[Chu Gai]

Because sulfur is contained in most coal, and burning it leads to sulfuric acid-laced rain, this idea may encounter severe resistance from those concerned with the effects of acid rain.

A similar objection has emerged to the idea of seeding areas of ocean with iron. A number of ocean labs, scientists and businesses are exploring iron fertilization as a means to sequester atmospheric CO2 in the deep ocean by increasing marine phytoplankton growth. This idea, although it seems (in my unprofessional opinion) much less harmful than burning sulfur, has also encountered fierce resistance from various environmental camps. It has been tried in a number of semi-large trials, but the objections, whether warranted or not, may be enough to stop further tests.

Yes, but they were talking about methods that would release the sulfuric acid several miles up such as occurs during some of the more violent volcano eruptions. Burning coal is different. Later tonite, I'll look for the passage in the book for specifics. I don't even know if it'll work but it's an experiment that's not irreversible.