Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[gene]

Geesh, is Florida becoming the new "F*** You" state?

I wish the article told what the Fla. Dept of Environmental Protection says instead.

"long-term meteorological transitional tendencies"?

I'm embarrassed to live in a state governed by criminal Rick Scott.

 

[Adam]

I'm embarrassed to live in a state governed by criminal Rick Scott.

Careful. That's on the verge of a political remark.

I say bring back political threads, btw. Might bring back some life to the forum...

 

[Hobbit]

What's sad is the overwhelming majority of scientist will say there is climate change occurring at a faster rate than has been ever recorded (barring catastrophic events that caused a temporary change). Even most of the hold outs, like the JPL guy that the non believers would pull up his research as no climate change is occurring, have seen enough evidence to now believe. There is pretty damning evidence that climate change is being caused by people/industrialization.

What I find sad, and almost equally comical, is that if you listen to any extreme right/left news (I use that term loosely), they'll find a "pundit" to push their cause forward. Then they'll throw in another pundit who's not as extreme but basically agrees to give a "balanced" view point. It goes from pure ignorance or that everything was placed on our planet for us to exploit without consequence, to the sky is falling and we'll be dead in a few years.

While I'm not at either extreme, I agree with JPL that we're not moving fast enough to stop the train.

 

[gene]

Careful. That's on the verge of a political remark.

I say bring back political threads, btw. Might bring back some life to the forum...

I'm not opposed to opening up political debates again but I'd defer to the judgement of our mods who would have to police them.

The life of this forum was sucked away by our social media (facebook and youtube). Seems like those two platforms have grown exponentially for us over the last year or so.

 

[gene]

What's sad is the overwhelming majority of scientist will say there is climate change occurring at a faster rate than has been ever recorded (barring catastrophic events that caused a temporary change). Even most of the hold outs, like the JPL guy that the non believers would pull up his research as no climate change is occurring, have seen enough evidence to now believe. There is pretty damning evidence that climate change is being caused by people/industrialization.

What I find sad, and almost equally comical, is that if you listen to any extreme right/left news (I use that term loosely), they'll find a "pundit" to push their cause forward. Then they'll throw in another pundit who's not as extreme but basically agrees to give a "balanced" view point. It goes from pure ignorance or that everything was placed on our planet for us to exploit without consequence, to the sky is falling and we'll be dead in a few years.

While I'm not at either extreme, I agree with JPL that we're not moving fast enough to stop the train.

Man made climate change is real and it is happening. There is a scientific consensus on it's cause. Just b/c one political party in our country continues to deny it, doesn't make it untrue. Sadly human nature will likely preclude us from making the necessary changes to combat it. The economically least fortunate people on the planet will have the hardest time adapting to it since most can't simply relocate to better temperate regions with less drought or flooding.

 

[shadyJ]

Lets face it.
The biggest cause of pollution is Over Population…

85% of you are going to have to go. ​

I am a big fan of Bill Burr as well, one of my favorite comedians. In all seriousness, too many people is an environmental problem. Earlier in this thread there were some quotes taken from Paul Ehrlich and the 'population bomb' predictions in an effort to discredit science. Ehrlich's predictions didn't pan out, but he was one of a small group of biologists making those sort of predictions. It wasn't every biologist supporting those Malthusian predictions, but with global warming, it IS nearly every climatologist who are calling for more concern. I'm not a scientist, but even a dumbass like myself can half get the idea that altering the chemistry of the atmosphere might just have some averse effects in our delicately balanced ecosystem.

But I don't think Ehrlich was wrong generally, only in some of the specific predictions. Who can dispute that too many people will lead to catastrophe? Although, as another one of my favorite comedians, George Carlin, pointed out, overpopulation is a self-correcting problem in the long run.

 

[3db]

Man made climate change is real and it is happening. There is a scientific consensus on it's cause. Just b/c one political party in our country continues to deny it, doesn't make it untrue. Sadly human nature will likely preclude us from making the necessary changes to combat it. The economically least fortunate people on the planet will have the hardest time adapting to it since most can't simply relocate to better temperate regions with less drought or flooding.

I believe man may have an influence on the rate of change in climatic shift but I'm still not 100% convinced that we are the sole reason for this shift. When Lief Erricon made it over to Newfoundlnd some 400+ years prior to Columbus, Lief discovered wild grapes growing in Newfoundland which indicates that the climate was definately warmer back then compared to now. Lief called Newfoundland Vinland. I don't know if you ever had a chance to visit the place but I wholy recommend it. People are awesome and friendly

Don't get me wrong. Mankind needs to stop poisoning the atmosphere. Acid Rain has killed many a lake in Norway, Sweden, and Finland and Canada too has suffered some loss in that respect as well.

 

[psbfan9]

Everyone knows the leading cause of climate change is ruminant anal wind expulsion . There's lots of methane in cow farts and camel burps.

I'm not that bright, but I don't think the OP is asking if climate change is happening or not. It seems to me that Harald is bringing up the issue of censorship.

 

[Hobbit]

I believe man may have an influence on the rate of change in climatic shift but I'm still not 100% convinced that we are the sole reason for this shift. When Lief Erricon made it over to Newfoundlnd some 400+ years prior to Columbus, Lief discovered wild grapes growing in Newfoundland which indicates that the climate was definately warmer back then compared to now. Lief called Newfoundland Vinland. I don't know if you ever had a chance to visit the place but I wholy recommend it. People are awesome and friendly


Don't get me wrong. Mankind needs to stop poisoning the atmosphere. Acid Rain has killed many a lake in Norway, Sweden, and Finland and Canada too has suffered some loss in that respect as well.

During this time frame the wine industry shifted north all the way to England. We do have a pretty good idea of why the medieval warming period, which was followed by the little ice age, occurred. Evidence suggests that during the medieval warming period tropical regions were actually cooler.

 

[Chu Gai]

Man made climate change is real and it is happening. There is a scientific consensus on it's cause. Just b/c one political party in our country continues to deny it, doesn't make it untrue. Sadly human nature will likely preclude us from making the necessary changes to combat it. The economically least fortunate people on the planet will have the hardest time adapting to it since most can't simply relocate to better temperate regions with less drought or flooding.

Let's say you're right and that the primary driving force is CO2 emissions. How do we reverse it in a timely fashion and what should the target goal be?

 

[Rickster71]

For those interested in the very lucrative side of the billions in government grants and the Climate Industry:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

 

[Steve81]

How do we reverse it in a timely fashion and what should the target goal be?

I suspect the only real practical solution (if not politically acceptable) would be to push next generation nuclear power (Gen III+, Gen IV) and supplement with wind / solar where feasible. On the automotive side, there are a few possibilities, though I don't really know how realistic any of them are on a large scale. Biodiesel derived from genetically modified algae seems to be the simplest path forward (no change in infrastructure required at least), but I couldn't say how far off mass production is. Last but not least you run into the issue of emissions related to agriculture / food production. Just convince everyone to become vegan. Problem solved

 

[Chu Gai]

I suspect the only real practical solution (if not politically acceptable) would be to push next generation nuclear power (Gen III+, Gen IV) and supplement with wind / solar where feasible. On the automotive side, there are a few possibilities, though I don't really know how realistic any of them are on a large scale. Biodiesel derived from genetically modified algae seems to be the simplest path forward (no change in infrastructure required at least), but I couldn't say how far off mass production is. Last but not least you run into the issue of emissions related to agriculture / food production. Just convince everyone to become vegan. Problem solved

You're not going to get major players like India and China to go along. They demand their shot at becoming first world countries and the quickest way is coal and related fossil fuels.

One of the ways to scrub the CO2 out is by vegetation but look what's happening in the Amazon. It's been postulated that the deforestation there is largely responsible for a severe decrease in rainfall leading to fresh water shortages. Similar things have occurred in Africa with local use of timber for cooking and heating blamed for regional climate disruptions.

They say it takes centuries to create the forest in the Amazon and in places like Africa, it's exceedingly difficult to regrow the vegetation once it's been chopped down. But... What if it were possible to use genetic manipulation like Monsanto does to create trees that didn't have those time constraints? Or we're drought tolerant for Africa? Turn swaths of Australia into forests. Even the US?

 

[gene]

Let's say you're right and that the primary driving force is CO2 emissions. How do we reverse it in a timely fashion and what should the target goal be?

You can't. I'm a realist

The damage is done and we can't change on a global scale to have a significant impact. All we can do now is adapt to the changes (those economically fortunate enough) and try to reduce emissions overtime to reduce the impact in coming centuries. It's not just CO2, methane release from cow farts and permafrost melting has 10x the heat trapping power of CO2.

 

[gene]

I suspect the only real practical solution (if not politically acceptable) would be to push next generation nuclear power (Gen III+, Gen IV) and supplement with wind / solar where feasible. On the automotive side, there are a few possibilities, though I don't really know how realistic any of them are on a large scale. Biodiesel derived from genetically modified algae seems to be the simplest path forward (no change in infrastructure required at least), but I couldn't say how far off mass production is. Last but not least you run into the issue of emissions related to agriculture / food production. Just convince everyone to become vegan. Problem solved

Nuclear is not carbon free and takes a significant amount of time to pay for itself. agreed though we need multiple sources of energy including wind and solar.

 

[gene]

For those interested in the very lucrative side of the billions in government grants and the Climate Industry:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

Yes because there is more profit in climate science than big oil. Give me a break. I have a brother (Dr. Dominick DellaSala) who is top of his field in Ecology and an expert on the impacts of climate change.

He lives pretty frugally as most scientists in his field. Most of these guys are in it for a good cause not profiteering.

The Koch brothers on the other hand have every vested interest in misleading the public and creating doubt about the scientific certainty Of Manmade Climate Change.

 

[Chu Gai]

You can't. I'm a realist

The damage is done and we can't change on a global scale to have a significant impact. All we can do now is adapt to the changes (those economically fortunate enough) and try to reduce emissions overtime to reduce the impact in coming centuries. It's not just CO2, methane release from cow farts and permafrost melting has 10x the heat trapping power of CO2.

Sure and along those lines wouldn't it have made more sense to not rebuild New Orleans in the same place? Oceans are rising, how much they will is unclear but IMO there's enough time for governments to phase in relocation for areas that are most likely to be affected. Maybe Lockheed wasn't BSing when they spoke of the imminent commercialization of fusion.

 

[gene]

Sure and along those lines wouldn't it have made more sense to not rebuild New Orleans in the same place? Oceans are rising, how much they will is unclear but IMO there's enough time for governments to phase in relocation for areas that are most likely to be affected. Maybe Lockheed wasn't BSing when they spoke of the imminent commercialization of fusion.

Agreed. They are already preparing New York for this and countries like Australia are way ahead of the curve too.

The Pentagon considers the impacts of climate change an immenant threat.

Lovely Ted Cruz is doing everything he can to stop Nasa from continuing to study it.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Nuclear is not carbon free and takes a significant amount of time to pay for itself. agreed though we need multiple sources of energy including wind and solar.

How is nuclear not carbon free? Uranium ore mining isn't, but the refinement process is electrical, so it could be carbon free according to my understanding, and I'm guessing compared to the electricity generated by the final product the carbon emissions from mining round to zero. Including mining and manufacturing wind and solar aren't currently carbon-free either.

Too bad hydro power is so intrusive on the environment. A turbine the size of a small house generates nearly a gigawatt.

 

[3db]

Like I said in my previous post, global warming/cooling may be cycles that occur naturally on a planetary scale. Certainly historical artifacts point to such events. As an example, the water levels have dropped significantly on the Colorado river. Scientists have studied the forests, in particular tree rings in the out lying valleys. They have noted that during droughts,the tree rings were closer together and skinnier and in times of non drought, tree rings were thicker and spaced face further apart. When they built the Hoover dam, the Colorado river was actually at a flood state well beyond its normal flow rate and is now returning to normal flow rates.

I believe we need to worry about bigger things than global warming such as acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer, and just the general poisoning of our atmosphere. Stop dumping sh?t into our oceans. Engineer things so that they can be repaired instead of being tossed out when broken to reduce waste entering land fills and for frig sakes, stop making so dam much plastic.