Climate Change?

[Dan]

And that's enough information for you to accept the "97%" figure as fact?

Again folks, a simple google search is in order. I found this in less than thirty seconds on a NASA site (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ). So here are five references all agreeing on a summation of the literature out there. The journals I am familiar with are among the most reputable in the world (PNAS and Science). THIS IS ENOUGH to convince me.

I have NEVER read an opinion disagreeing with the consensus from a peer reviewed journal from a source not receiving funding from the energy corporations. Please feel free to show me a peer reviewed quality piece of literature that states a contrary opinion. Bueller...Bueller...Bueller....

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

 

[Dan]

Just beat me to it mtrycrafts

 

[mtrycrafts]

Again folks, a simple google search is in order. I found this in less than thirty seconds on a NASA site (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ ). So here are five references all agreeing on a summation of the literature out there. The journals I am familiar with are among the most reputable in the world (PNAS and Science). THIS IS ENOUGH to convince me.

I have NEVER read an opinion disagreeing with the consensus from a peer reviewed journal from a source not receiving funding from the energy corporations. Please feel free to show me a peer reviewed quality piece of literature that states a contrary opinion. Bueller...Bueller...Bueller....
....

Naw. Bury head in sand and wait till we have ALL the answers and ALL the money to spend on the solution. Again, too late by then.

Just beat me to it mtrycrafts

That SI link is interesting. 99+%

 

[herbu]

Those questions might be reasonable ones to ask, but only if they come from those who are truely concerned with such financial questions.

Prior to 2017, the GOP consistently opposed increased government revenues and increased spending while favoring lower federal taxes. Since 2017, the Trump White House and GOP-dominated Congress (until 2019) have abandoned that long-held GOP position. Instead, they favor cutting taxes while increasing federal spending. This isn't just a major policy reversal that abandons long-held party principles, it's downright reckless.

Oh. OK. I understand now. Thanks for the clear answers. Always helpful to hear from an expert on the subject... especially one with such a great sense of humor.

 

[herbu]

Let me get this straight. You're worried about using too much solar energy? Why aren't you also worried about burning too much coal and oil?

panteragstk has it right. By the time solar energy reaches Earth, it's no longer potential energy as is coal & oil, it's already kinetic energy. It's up to us whether we convert some to electricity or let it all be converted to other forms, mainly heat. If there is a major climate-related issue with doing that, it's not like we aren't already on the lookout for that.

Don't confuse curiosity with worry. I am curious, not worried, about things I don't understand. So there are only unintended consequences when you mess with potential energy? You can do whatever you want with kinetic energy? Stopping wind, or waves would have no effect? Sounds to me like what the belief used to be about burning fossil fuels. Sunlight is kinetic energy? I'll have to think about that a little. Somehow I have a feeling it is both. Particles AND waves, you know?

But it sounds like your answer is essentially, "Don't worry about it". If there is a problem, we'll see it. OK. Got it. Thanks.

 

[herbu]

You can't be serious with this question. Even if we covered 1% of the land area of the earth with solar panels, it's still insignificant, and 1% is a huge area compared to economic reality. The Earth's surface area is about 197 million square miles, and 29% is land, so 1% of the land area is about 571,000 square miles of solar panels. And that would still be only 0.0029% percent of the total surface area. NFW for significant solar absorption impact, and NFW for economic feasibility. To put this into perspective, Alaska has an area of 663,300 square miles. Cloud cover variances are far more significant.

Irv, intuition says you're right. But I bet intuition said the same thing with the first steam engines. Just asking.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv, intuition says you're right. But I bet intuition said the same thing with the first steam engines. Just asking.

What do steam engines have to do with this?

Intuition is irrelevant. The answer to your question about whether solar power could affect the earth's ecosystem is simple mathematics an average 6th grade student could do.

 

[KEW]

I can't think of a place energy is used that doesn't result in the addition of heat.
A refrigerator puts more heat into the kitchen than it puts "cool" into the refrigerator.
Same for AC.
My point is solar energy systems may delay the full release of the energy from the sun, but I am pretty sure that heat does get released eventually!

 

[panteragstk]

I can't think of a place energy is used that doesn't result in the addition of heat.
A refrigerator puts more heat into the kitchen than it puts "cool" into the refrigerator.
Same for AC.
My point is solar energy systems may delay the full release of the energy from the sun, but I am pretty sure that heat does get released eventually!

Right, and the devices using the power generated by the solar panels will also release heat.

 

[herbu]

What do steam engines have to do with this?

Intuition is irrelevant. The answer to your question about whether solar power could affect the earth's ecosystem is simple mathematics an average 6th grade student could do.

Really? Great! Can you use that same math to tell me what effect reducing CO2 by 0.1% will have? How about 1%?

And about solar, a lot of rhetoric but no answer to the point at which we would see an effect. For the people in the short bus, when we began growing steam engines that burn wood or coal, I suspect there was no thought into long term environmental impact. So I'm asking a theoretical question. My suspicion is that we don't understand climate well enough to quantify what effect increasing or decreasing levels of CO2, or wind or sunlight will have.

I have never said that reducing CO2 emission is a bad thing. I'm just asking about the cost/benefit numbers. Sorry, but "OMG we have to save the planet" is not an intelligent answer.

 

[highfigh]

... is simple mathematics an average 6th grade student could do.

Have you had an average person try to give change from a larger bill during a purchase? They can't do it and employers are making them stop trying.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Really? Great! Can you use that same math to tell me what effect reducing CO2 by 0.1% will have? How about 1%?

Of course not, that's a different question entirely. However, based on the information on this web page:

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere seems to be going up by about 5 parts per million per year, very roughly. So 1% equals about somewhat less than one year of incremental excess CO2 emissions, assuming that's the question you're asking (and I'm not sure about that).

And about solar, a lot of rhetoric but no answer to the point at which we would see an effect. For the people in the short bus, when we began growing steam engines that burn wood or coal, I suspect there was no thought into long term environmental impact. So I'm asking a theoretical question. My suspicion is that we don't understand climate well enough to quantify what effect increasing or decreasing levels of CO2, or wind or sunlight will have.

On this point you're completely off-base and just being stubborn and argumentative. There is no way in the next hundred years that we're going to capture enough sunlight to affect the balance of energy hitting the earth. NFW. Or are you one of the people highfigh is talking about that can't understand arithmetic?

I have never said that reducing CO2 emission is a bad thing. I'm just asking about the cost/benefit numbers. Sorry, but "OMG we have to save the planet" is not an intelligent answer.

I said something similar in a previous post in this thread, but I think the basis for your version of this same opinion is just because you're basically a denier that there's a problem at all.

 

[KEW]

Sorry, but "OMG we have to save the planet" is not an intelligent answer.

I won't argue that!
However, as far as I am aware it is the only answer that prevents destruction of life on earth as we currently know it and maybe human life on earth, period!
Also saving "the planet", if taken literally, is incorrect. "Saving civilization" might be the better terminology. The planet will have a few more years after we are gone in most any scenario other than LEXX or the Death Star!

 

[lovinthehd]

I won't argue that!
However, as far as I am aware it is the only answer that prevents destruction of life on earth as we currently know it and maybe human life on earth, period!
Also saving "the planet", if taken literally, is incorrect. "Saving civilization" might be the better terminology. The planet will have a few more years after we are gone in most any scenario other than LEXX or the Death Star!

Yep saving the planet as habitable for humans is one thing, the planet will merrily go on without us and certainly some forms of life will survive no matter how stupid we are.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I won't argue that!
However, as far as I am aware it is the only answer that prevents destruction of life on earth as we currently know it and maybe human life on earth, period!
Also saving "the planet", if taken literally, is incorrect. "Saving civilization" might be the better terminology. The planet will have a few more years after we are gone in most any scenario other than LEXX or the Death Star!

Here's a rare case of something we can't agree on, Kurt. I don't think the planet or all life on Earth is at stake. Or even human extinction. What might be at stake is the sustainability of a population of 10 billion humans, or perhaps the inhabitabilty of some key parts of the planet, but the planet will survive and heal eventually, and human are very unlikely to become extinct, no less all life. Personally I like the Earth to be human friendly, but let's not get carried away.

 

[KEW]

Here's a rare case of something we can't agree on, Kurt. I don't think the planet or all life on Earth is at stake. Or even human extinction. What might be at stake is the sustainability of a population of 10 billion humans, or perhaps the inhabitabilty of some key parts of the planet, but the planet will survive and heal eventually, and human are very unlikely to become extinct, no less all life. Personally I like the Earth to be human friendly, but let's not get carried away.

No we are in agreement! My wording may have been awkward. I said:

However, as far as I am aware it is the only answer that prevents destruction of life on earth as we currently know it and maybe human life on earth, period!
Also saving "the planet", if taken literally, is incorrect. "Saving civilization" might be the better terminology. The planet will have a few more years after we are gone in most any scenario other than LEXX or the Death Star!

When I said life on earth as we currently know it, I was referring to our lifestyle rather than forms of life (which is a reasonable interpretation),and then, I said "maybe human life on earth" (as more of a long shot).
The second paragraph is more clear when I suggested "saving civilization", because I think that is truly what is at stake. A lot depends on how well nuclear countries play together as resources get scarce. And maybe civilization will make it through. One thing for certain is (if we do nothing) Gene will get his population reduction. Nature has a way of balancing the ledger on its own, if we don't.
Farms can only adapt to climate changes so quickly and we have yet to know what (drought vs flooding, etc) to expect any year. the only clear thing is that the weather will not be reliably consistent!

 

[mtrycrafts]

An interesting video

 

[TankTop5]

Most of this website is over my head but lots of scientific articles and white papers.

Co2science.org


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irvrobinson]

Most of this website is over my head but lots of scientific articles and white papers.

Co2science.org

Just as I thought, oil industry guys:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/center-for-the-study-of-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change/

Not that I'm a Greenpeace fan, but financed partially by the Koch brothers, XON, and Peabody Energy? Uh huh.

 

[TankTop5]

Just as I thought, oil industry guys:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/center-for-the-study-of-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change/

Not that I'm a Greenpeace fan, but financed partially by the Koch brothers, XON, and Peabody Energy? Uh huh.

Both sides of the argument are financed by people the other side disagrees with. If we are going to dismiss the science based on who holds the checkbook we’ll never move forward.

Yes climate change is real.

Yes some of it is caused by man.

Yes we should do something about it.

Yes the climate of earth has always changed.

Yes there are benefits to higher concentrations of CO2.

The fact is man made climate change is caused by money., it’s cheaper to pollute than conserve. Bitching, moaning, parades and education won’t change anything. Every nation that signed the Paris Accords are in violation because it’s expensive! The only thing that will change anything is science figuring out how to create a cost benefit to fighting pollution. It will do nothing to create taxes or penalties for pollution, laws will simply be created to give loopholes and the wealthy will always find ways to game the system. The ONLY thing that will work is to make it profitable to conserve... carry on...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk