Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 2200 of total 2200 in this topic
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Topic Author's Original Post - Nov 3, 2016 - 08:17pm PT
I know that I don't live my life as though climate change is as scary and real as we all know it to be, but goddamn we have a lot to be scared of. I have been watching "Years of Living Dangerously" which the first 2 episodes are from Showtime, and the most current season 3 is on National Geographic Channel.

My guess is that the petroleum companies have successfully shut us up about it because the dumbasses that believe that it isn't true wear us out with their idiotic reasoning about why it isn't true.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 3, 2016 - 08:19pm PT
Because the Republican Party isn't extinct. Yet.

Curt
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2016 - 08:30pm PT
Do you really think the republican party is going anywhere? They are going to continue growing due to many of the same reasons there is war in Syria, and rising right-wing nationalism in Europe: a decrease in education funding and an increase in the separation between the haves and have-nots. Ironically the reasons for much of this separation is being caused by climate change. . . and the "poor" uneducated people that follow the right-right wing are supporting people that not only deny climate change, but are actively attempting to increase the velocity that our earth warms up. . .

I believe that our country will only keep moving towards a dictatorship. . .I think Obama is a decent man and an okay president, but he has continued the tradition of grasping more power, which I believe will just continue when a majority of our congress is composed of gas corporation puppets, and I don't see Hillary Clinton doing much about climate change despite how much the right hates her she seems to be another puppet to the people with the money.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
Nov 3, 2016 - 08:38pm PT
Because there are still unopened cases of champagne on the Titanic?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 3, 2016 - 08:42pm PT
that dog crapping on my lawn isn't being caused by me ergo I can't do anything about it. to wit: maybe it is good for the lawn
Fossil climber

Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
Nov 3, 2016 - 08:47pm PT
You're right, Skitch. Animal populations boom and bust. We're animals. Approaching the bust. Short sightedness is a characteristic of our species. Be glad you lived when you have.
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 3, 2016 - 10:30pm PT
Jody: please tell your God to quit being such an assshole?
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:37am PT
Why worry about it if there is nothing you can do about it? It isn't being caused by humans therefore humans can't affect it. Who says climate change is bad anyway? Maybe it is GOOD for the earth.

1) There are things we can do about it.

2) It is being caused by humans.

3) Global warming is bad, unless you're a religious nutcase eagerly awaiting the rapture.

Curt
mouse from merced

Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:43am PT
Animal populations boom and bust. We're animals. Approaching the bust. Short sightedness is a characteristic of our species. Be glad you lived when you have.

Wayne, please tell your God to be more rational. :0)

Dingus, may I have a ride in your handbasket?
Bushman

climber
The state of quantum flux
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:59am PT
Hell is what our grandchildren will possibly experience.

Hell is worrying about their future in a world of runaway green house gasses and its effects, or their chances of surviving in a toxic environment, or of surviving a nuclear war.

Hell is manmade and here on earth, and death is the only escape from it.

Hell is for children.

Have a wonderful day!
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 06:55am PT
You know, science. Or maybe: You don't know, science.

Perhaps, in the vernacular: Pray to Gawd.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:07am PT
because it didn't fit their observations

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:13am PT
Jody - Whatever they choose to call IT, the thought that we can do something about IT, that IT is being caused by humans, and that IT has catastrophic consequences, is only believed and taken as undeniable "fact" if you are an environmental nutcase quack.

Science deniers (reality deniers) are a funny lot. Also, apparently some of "them" still call IT "global warming."

Global warming is happening now. The planet's temperature is rising. The trend is clear and unmistakable. Every one of the past 38 years has been warmer than the 20th century average. The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. The hottest year ever recorded for the contiguous United States occurred in 2012. Globally, the average surface temperature has increased more than one degree Fahrenheit since the late 1800s. Most of that increase has occurred over just the past three decades.

We are the cause. We are overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, which traps heat and steadily drives up the planet’s temperature. Where does all this carbon come from? The fossil fuels we burn for energy—coal, natural gas, and oil—plus the loss of forests due to deforestation, especially in the tropics. The scientific evidence is clear. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.WByW6neZMU0

Curt
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:15am PT
woe unto them that lay house unto house, field unto field...

Bushman

climber
The state of quantum flux
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:23am PT
A majority of earth's scientists have understood for some time that climate change is caused by human activity and is absolutely real. It's not even a real debate any longer among forward thinking people.

Denying a problem is not a solution unless you believe there is no problem. In that case your mind would never be changed, short of traveling 100 years into the future to see for yourself what impact our activities have had on the planet.

Building a time machine would be way more difficult than for governments, the populace, and industries to begin taking the problem of global warming and climate change seriously. Still, a time machine is a great learning tool. In fact, we already have a time machine for seeing the impact of overpopulation. It's called history.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:24am PT
A majority of earth's scientists have understood for some time that climate change is caused by human activity and is absolutely real. It's not even a real debate any longer among forward thinking people.

Ah, that would explain Jody's position.

Curt
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:25am PT
I agree, Bushman.

What do you DO?



EDTI:

You too, Curt.

What do you DO?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:25am PT
The women on my campus do not cause rape therefore they can do nothing about getting raped.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:28am PT
Jody,

1) >97% of the world's climate scientists agree it's being caused by human activity (the remaining 3% are mainly unsure).

2) The rest of the world agrees that it is being caused by human activity.

3) Most American's believe it's being caused by Human activity.

4) One shrinking group of American's believe it's a hoax BECAUSE THEIR CHOSEN POLITICIANS TELL THEM IT'S A HOAX.

5) Have you ever read the story of Noah's Arc? Remember all the proud disbelief and ridicule heaped on Noah? This is what has been done by American politicians (and their followers) on the world's climate scientists. This is Noah's Arc all over again!
Bushman

climber
The state of quantum flux
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:28am PT
Curt,
Using my point to make your point, in point, makes the point. Pointy hats to be passed all around...

Yes, I'm also part of the problem, tree service owner, fossil fuel user, and consumer. We recycle green waste and attempt to preserve the urban forest when diseased or hazard trees do not need to be removed. Still, wholesale changes could be made in our industry.

Inevitably, my hazard existence shall be removed. End of my problem, but not for the rest of us.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:29am PT
Answer me this, umpteen thousands of years ago, when a majority of the earth was covered in ice, what caused it to start melting?

You ask this of people that actually happen to have a pretty good answer for you, yet your surliness and certitude that combustion of 2.7 million gallons of oil per minute has nothing to do with changes to the earth's atmosphere and climate preclude a serious answer.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:32am PT
I agree Snagglepuss.

What do we DO?

thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:33am PT
less burning of hydrocarbons would be a good start Chaz
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:35am PT
enhance access to education -> lower rates of reproduction -> diminished (or at least not so rapidly growing) pool of users

cut off federal subsidy to the extractors, transfer subsidy to non-hydrocarbon energy generation/storage/transport tech.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:38am PT
You too, Curt.

What do you DO?

My opinion would be to move away from fossil fuels to other forms of energy as quickly as possible. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. I would even give nuclear energy another look for baseload generation. Not an easy task--but certainly doable.

Curt
patrick compton

Trad climber
van
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:38am PT
global warming is Trump's warm love shining down on all of us!

praise Lord Trump!
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:38am PT
an economic model in which growth (market as a prison) is not requisite might help. a bit late now, I agree
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:44am PT
^yep, that's the problem, we do live at a desirable standard. perhaps educating those that are reproducing most rapidly would help, as suggested.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:46am PT
What do we do about the other 95% of humanity?

I'll bet humanity is fairly agnostic with regard to where their energy comes from.

Curt
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:49am PT
Chaz,

What we do is ...
We stop denying and continue taking baby steps toward a cleaner future.

Climbing El Cap seems daunting when standing at the bottom looking up. Many choose Jody's & Dingus's route and bail. But move by move, pitch by pitch, if you continue upward you will alwaysUnderlined arrive at the top.

What we do is make the first move up ... and then continue. Baby steps without quitting.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:54am PT
perhaps educating those that are reproducing most rapidly would help, as suggested.

From what I've seen of the have-nots they want what we have and they want it NOW!
And China and India, despite merrily signing climate accords, seemingly have no intention
of actively participating. Show me a catalytic converter on a car over there and I'll show you
a thousand without one.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:56am PT
Educate their wimmen and their wimmen will want real lives rather than pumping out 37 chillins.



And I totally hear you about the tragedy of the commons.

Fewer chillins, living at a higher standard, could enhance the likelihood of a more reasonable use of the commons
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 4, 2016 - 07:57am PT
I agree, Cowboy, but the wimmen over yonder don't have much say in the matter.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:01am PT
I hear you. Cultural mores complicate it for sure. Educating their men will likely help relax that sex-restricted access to education, self-determination. I always thought that Taliban-type f*#kers could be addressed with mass LSD poisoning and aerial distribution of pornography

I'm really trying to be optimistic here, to forego the doom and gloom that helps me to do the runouts. :-)



And heck yeah DMT! I'm all for it! Just not in Green River, unless I'm selling 'em some key system components.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:05am PT
Wimmen are the key to changing the Third World. They're the ones doing the micro-bank
thang, community and reproductive health, and violence against themselves. It's an uphill
battle for sure.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:17am PT
Ultimately all of these problems will be address with a massive calamity that reduces the human population, quality/duration of life. This is the 10,000 year rule and it comforts me when I see a shitty Pamper on the beach, or confront just how fractured and intractable even the much-idealized American system of governance, political/public deliberation stands.

F*#k it man, why would I work today when I can go find that two-track off a certain dirt road and dance in bodily harmony with the earth as she is on this glorious day? Never had the rhythm for proper dancehall leading with human partners anyway. Let's go bowling.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:22am PT
I don't stress on it. I go bowling and work to enhance the discourse in my little community here in my town. I think that talking about it is a good thing. I owe Jody a thank-you for starting the thread. And an apology, some day.







"There is nothing much we individuals can do about it, other than some measures like outlawing plastic bags." I am not so sure about this: my partner does not drive, she does not eat meat, and her career is dedicated to furthering the discourse. It's all wrapped up in how much you: 1) believe it is a problem that we are morally obligated to address, 2) take steps in your own life to do so. Baby steps, as the man says.

As a taxpayer I support money for the Train to Nowhere over more public money for the Train to Oceanic Acidification.
mouse from merced

Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:27am PT
"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Population Explosion and Then It Blew Up In My Face."

Read it. It changed my life. Not many copies available. Tough to find. No, you cannot have mine and I don't lend books. Find your own.

And get the hell off my lawn!
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:28am PT
Why aren't more people concerned about it?

It doesn't directly impact anyone. It's not tangible. And the effort required to reduce CO2 levels would require global cooperation. Most people realize that's undoable.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:30am PT
"It doesn't directly impact anyone. It's not tangible" Tell it to the dudes going underwater in the S Pacific?



"And the effort required to reduce CO2 levels would require global cooperation. Most people realize that's undoable" This is an interesting iteration of my "F*#k it dude, let's go bowling" approach. Your attitude is the same as that in the Chinese smelters, that of the biggest polluters in Asia. It's the "I'm getting mine, f*#k the commons, and f*#k you" strategy. It works. For you.




The fact is, Polio was impossible. Infections were impossible. Climate change is impossible?

This is generationally rooted:
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:42am PT
Yes, if it means we stop pouring money into the dead-ends that we currently are dumping taxpayer dollars into. America can still lead.

"Is baking soda the answer to acid reflux?"
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:44am PT
"The disconnect from natural systems is profound" Totally agree. This is the beauty of the 10,000 year rule and human physical resilience



"We've broken the earth" You're speeding towards a guard-rail on a cliff-edge road. Do you hit the brakes or the gas?





"It doesn't and it won't" Well sh#t man, let's go bowling. No need to feel so bad about it, I suppose.



snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:44am PT
Quitter's never get anything done. Lead, follow, or get out of the way! So many quit because it seems hard.

Our generation can be the one to go down in history as the one that started the change. It took 150 years to create the problem. It will not be fixed by a single generation. We can start to fix it, that is all. But that start is huge! Everything starts by starting.

Stop worrying about fixing it - you can't. All we can do is start to fix it.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:46am PT
DMT, the wife may not take kindly to hearing that she is wasting her time curing her patients.
I, for one, am pretty damn glad I never got polio or smallpox, but maybe that's just me.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:48am PT
Jody, your fear-mongering makes me want to accept your control.


You vote Johnson? I wish I'd had the balls to get away from those damn major parties.

I sure am in favor nuclear power. Certainly not the case for everyone.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:51am PT
^indeed, the very traits that helped us make it to today cause the worst problems that we face.
mouse from merced

Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:54am PT
America was only the self-styled "leader" of a bloc of power seeking to undermine the power of another bloc of nations seeking to do the same to our bloc.

WE are not the leader, never have been. It's just our ego being fed by the media, the efforts of the powers-that-be to keep us happy and misled.

I wish I could set up a popcorn stand here.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:55am PT
This is an interesting iteration of my "F*#k it dude, let's go bowling" approach. Your attitude is the same as that in the Chinese smelters, that of the biggest polluters in Asia. It's the "I'm getting mine, f*#k the commons, and f*#k you" strategy. It works. For you.

Yikes! Bravecowboy's got his danders up.

If the governments of the World come up with a program to reduce CO2 levels... one that might actually work... I'll do what's asked. Gladly.

Until I'm asked to do something towards that end, I'm not going to worry about it.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:56am PT
Jody - You tell us that "they" are trying to control us. You encourage me to abandon my beliefs. It makes me feel like you are trying to control me. I can see how you might feel the same, especially when the most strident of my camp are preaching at you.

It is tough for me, to cast a vote for a Giant Turd. I suppose that this is the nature of shared human existence in a cooperative society.




And yes, EdwardT, time for me to GTFO here and get un-dandered in the Ponderosa-perfumed nirvana of our world. I hear your point. Go bowling!
Batrock

Trad climber
Burbank
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:58am PT
I think it's because people are callous to the cry for change.
In the 1970's we were supposed to be headed into an ice age, in the 1980's we had the hole in the ozone, in the late 90's-into the 2000's we had global warming and rising ocean levels. Now it's climate change. I think the average person has just become immune.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 4, 2016 - 08:59am PT
Cowboy, being a geographer probably explains why I paid big bucks for a copy of The Rolling
Stones' "Sympathy For Thomas Maslow". Most people haven't heard it but it ROCKS!

And I prefer Bocce cause it's played outside.
Delhi Dog

climber
Good Question...
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:22am PT
Just finished watching NatGEo's Before the Flood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M

I'd encourage you to watch it with an open mind if possible and then come back to discuss. Stick with it to the end.
I doubt many of you will but I remain optimistic.

If nothing else there is plenty of material to give pause for thought no matter which side of the "aisle" you're on.

cheers

WBraun

climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:33am PT
In the 1970's we were supposed to be headed into an ice age,
in the 1980's we had the hole in the ozone,
in the late 90's-into the 2000's we had global warming and rising ocean levels.
Now it's climate change.

I think the average person has just become immune.

Yes 100% true.

50 years ago people were shocked when crime, killing, murders or shootings in their neighborhoods.

Now they are immune as it occurs every day as seemingly normal.

Also you see bars on homes and security apparatuses everywhere in residential neighborhoods you've never seen back then.

America is brainwashed into drooling sheep ......
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:46am PT
IT is all about controlling the people based on fraud.

Fortunately, not many of us live in Jody's flat, 6,000 year-old world.

Curt
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:52am PT
It's pretty hard fighting climate change when a monopoly of oil corporations own our politicians...What was that story about Exxon publishing fake science to help squelch climate change science...? Why would Exxon do that if climate change wasn't real...?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:56am PT
.What was that story about Exxon publishing fake science to help squelch climate change science...?

Alarmist propaganda.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:01am PT
Perhaps its because rich actors who have massive carbon footprints jetsetting around the world to make a for profit TV show while lecturing the peasant masses about climate change is a poor way to inform the public about the problem. How much pollution does Leo cause making his movies?


Its a good thing we have a guy like this around. What on earth would we do without him?
G_Gnome

Trad climber
Cali
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:04am PT
(10) your government is corrupt and incompetent

Not true at all. They are indeed corrupt but they are doing a great job at what they intend to do; misinformation, fear mongering, etc.
Jon Nelson

Boulder climber
Bellingham, WA
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:05am PT
Part of the answer may be that it is a very slow change, and a change that is hard for us to detect with our senses due to the much larger diurnal and seasonal temperature fluctuations.

Going slightly off on a tangent, I also think that people have little sense about how profound an effect that greenhouse gases have on our daily temperature.

The textbooks and probably nearly all websites will say that the overall effect of these gases is to raise our average surface temperature by 30 C (54 F). But some researchers recently calculated the average surface temperature of the moon, which is essentially a model of the Earth without an atmosphere, and found a big flaw in how previous people did the average. Turns out the average surface temperature of the moon is a whopping 90 C (162 F) degrees colder. And the diurnal fluctuation is about 300 C. Greenhouse gases have a gigantic effect on us.

Think about that next time you see the moon.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:24am PT
IT is all about controlling the people based on fraud.

You mean the global warming hoax hoax? That fraud? (perpetrated with the same methods and by a lot of the same organizations that claimed cigarette smoking is just fine and freon wasn't destroying the ozone layer).

It's telling that the argument against global warming being a problem is "it's a liberal conspiracy to control us" not "here's the problems in the science, or hear is an alternative scientifically sound view of the data".

It's science. It doesn't say for certain what is happening (especially with a hugely complex system like the climate). But when you see carbon dioxide in the air (a greenhouse gas) is rising to WAY more than it's been for thousands of years, coinciding with the average global temperature going up you should be concerned.

Now the results of that are tough to predict. So IMO we shouldn't make drastic government imposed changes to our lifestyles that will significantly impact millions of people. But to buy into the BS (from the petroleum industry, etc) that it's not even happening is willful delusion.

People don't want their lifestyles impacted. Especially when the negative effects of global warming will mainly be on others. The first people to really suffer will be islanders on low level islands over the next couple decades. Then toward the latter half of this century coastal areas in America will have to deal with rising sea levels. Then our children will all start paying more for food, healthcare, etc. due the effects. Of course this is all projection, but that is what is likely to happen. We should at least be concerned about it and doing whatever we can to minimize the affects without really impacting our lifestyles (e.g. switching to renewable energy as much as possible). And everyone can do their part by being efficient with their energy use. e.g. put on a sweater, and keep the heater down. Without significantly impacting their life.

Who knows what will happen hundreds of years from now. When our children's' children will inherit the Earth. It's not about saving the planet, it's about leaving the planet in decent shape for them. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But than again future technologies may help them limit of reverse the impacts, so I'm not one to say we have to eliminate all global warming right now.
Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:34am PT

Re global warming/climate change, we will adapt.
mouse from merced

Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
Nov 4, 2016 - 11:32am PT
And keep eating lots and lots of popcorn...
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 11:33am PT
Fastest way to get the biggest effect: a carbon tax levied at the pump and an adjustment in other taxes (income, sales, etc) to make it as revenue-neutral as possible.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 11:43am PT
Sadly, the more I read of these stubborn American opinions the more I'm convinced the problem will be addressed through generational turnover. The current crop of stubborn old American white dudes will fight change until they're dead. Every day there are fewer of them blocking the way to the future. That may be where hope lies. Look at the table of generational statistics posted earlier in this thread.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 11:48am PT
I think states have to institute the carbon taxes on their own in order to get anywhere quickly. This is what British Columbia did. It ain't gonna happen at the federal level. The gas tax there hasn't changed in over 20 yrs and it's primarily used to build new roads, as far as I know...
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 4, 2016 - 11:55am PT
Sadly, the more I read of these stubborn American opinions the more I'm convinced the problem will be addressed through generational turnover.

Today's young people are more entitled... more pampered than any previous generation. Smart phones are a given for most kids over eleven. Kids doing yardwork are a rarity. They spend their free time glued to tiny screens.

You think they'l make the hard sacrifices to reverse global warming?
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:09pm PT
Robert,

One guy doesn't make a generation. Ask YC and he'll tell you his generation has dropped the ball on environmental issues.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:17pm PT
EdwardT,

Believe it or not but "entitled and self-centered" is how the genX-ers characterize the stone-wallers of your generation and mine.

The difference is that some among the Xers have the energy and ambition to embrace new ideas and overcome huge challenges. The rest are more willing to follow and not just stone-wall.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:21pm PT
Malemute,

No need for anything that drastic. LOL
Time will do the dirty deeds and it will do it dirt cheap!
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:23pm PT
DMT, the BC approach does also include carbon taxes on commercial and industrial operations. I haven't looked at the most recent data, but for the first several years (since I believe BC started on this in 2008), the overall GDP effect was negligible and the reduction in carbon-based fuel usage was around 15% vs the rest of CN.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:29pm PT
No carbon tax on imported goods, at least not as of 2013, which is the date of the study I use as my main reference. Your question is a good one and motivates me to see if there is an update on this.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:42pm PT
Yes, you are right on the trade dynamics. But in my view, we've got a lot of excuses for not doing things and I guess all of the voluntary ways to reduce carbon footprint look to me to be very insignificant. A very small sliver of the population has made significant changes in what they buy and how they get around. But everyone else does what is cheapest and most comfortable. Maybe there is no way around our usage of fossil fuels and/or accelerate development of alternatives, we should change the price signal on business as usual.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:48pm PT
Sounds good to me. Last I checked, the embodied-energy database on various manufactured goods was looking better and better. I think that's a very important aspect to this whole thing since so much of what we consume comes from offshore.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 12:52pm PT
Robert L,

It probably doesn't matter what motivates them. What matters is that some humans out of every generation are always driven to tackle the biggest problems. Usually before the next big unforeseen consequence hits the fan.

You seem very pessimistic and defeatist. How did you possibly ever climb anything with that attitude?
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Nov 4, 2016 - 01:07pm PT
Carbon taxes are a challenge politically (good luck getting any congressional Republicans to vote for it) as well as competitively in a global economy (as DMT mentions)(e.g. if we have higher taxes than China we put ourselves at a disadvantage).

They are perhaps part of a plan to address the issue, but I think investing in renewable energy is the more feasible solution. If we lead the world in clean energy we not only enjoy the benefits of cleaner air we can sell that tech to other countries and it makes us more competitive globally.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Nov 4, 2016 - 01:17pm PT
BC has used some of the carbon tax revenue to improve things like public transportation. Unfortunately I can't stay in this discussion for longer this afternoon but will try to provide some more info/links to address your question later today/early tomorrow.

Here's at least a link to get started on, but note it likely has a pro-tax bias. There are a number of other studies out there.

https://www.carbontax.org/blog/2015/12/17/british-columbias-carbon-tax-by-the-numbers/
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 01:27pm PT
Robert L,

It sounds like you believe in yourself but not in anyone else?

Motivations matter on a moral and philosophical level, which is important. Generally speaking, motivators don't ever change. There are only a few strong human motivators. Does it matter if someone saves mankind to impress his dead parents? Does it matter if someone saves the world to get laid more? Does it matter if someone saves the world to get rich? Many will do selfish and/or evil things for the same motivations.
Jon Nelson

Boulder climber
Bellingham, WA
Nov 4, 2016 - 02:25pm PT
"I also think that people have little sense about how profound an effect that greenhouse gases have on our daily temperature."

Why is it warmer at night when it's cloudy?
Because the clouds act as a blanket.

Everybody knows this, but the public doesn't understand the reason,
which is
-the earth radiates infrared frequencies due to the black body effect
-water vapour in clouds is a greenhouse gas
-greenhouse gases absorb & emit infrared radiation
-a good portion of the emitted radiation goes back to the earth

So greenhouse gases cause the earth to retain heat
This isn't rocket science


It is a good point about the clouds, as the clouds are even more effective at warming us, but the blanket analogy is the wrong one. (This is an unfortunate byproduct of the term 'greenhouse'.) A campfire analogy would be a huge improvement.

The warming has essentially nothing to do with absorption by the clouds or gases. It occurs only because the gases and cloud particles radiate. So, they should just be called 'radiating gases', and the effect, the 'atmospheric radiation effect'. Oh well, too late now.

A blanket works by suppressing convection. But convection in the troposphere entirely determines the temperature of the clouds and gases, which then radiate and warm us. This warming can happen only if we do NOT have a 'blanket'.

It's OK though Malemute. I see the same mistake everywhere. Probably pretty hopeless to try and correct now...

BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 4, 2016 - 02:57pm PT
Serious questions, no agenda.

What percent of worldwide climate change is truly anthropogenic?


And, the remaining percent that is NOT anthropogenic is caused by . . . what?


What percent of our current climate change is cyclical, or caused by the sun, or anomalies like rotations?


What percent of the total anthropogenic climate change is the United States directly responsible for?


And, what percent of the percentage that the United States is directly responsible for (that which we can effect with our vote, passing laws, changing behavior) can be controlled or reduced by us?

A) If we completely stop our economy and live in the dark ages as a country?
B) If we try to lead the world in promoting and/or making this central to our ideology?
C) Ignore the fact that China and India (and a dozen others) add coal fired power plants and other significant problems faster than we could ever reduce our emissions.



What has come to fruition from the studies done in the ‘90’s that lead to Al Gore’s slide show called An Inconvenient Truth since the origins and the predictions and the time limits of events that should have happened?


Do you believe or consider evidence produced in Climate Gate emails that things may have been overstated or ‘messed’ with?

A) What percent of the climate Gate emails have you read and cross-reference on your own
B) What percent do you believe are real and not out of context . . . 1%, 10% 50%?
C) After reading and cross-referencing – did you reflect or re-see An Inconvenient Truth?


Do you/did you believe 'predictions and computer models' of catastrophes more than 'after the fact retrospective evidence' (current satellite data) now looking back on what really is happening?


Do you believe there was/is a profit or money motive for some in the world to embrace/promote climate change and suggest trading carbon credits, new untested and expensive industries, tax credits for exploring new options and the equalizing of nations and countries into a global community?
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 4, 2016 - 03:13pm PT













https://xkcd.com/1732/
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 4, 2016 - 03:39pm PT
DMT Wrote
So long as the playing field is level, yes. If you expect me to take unilateral action, I will not.

...classic set up for a Tragedy of the Commons. Bruce K called you out on this. All of us should as well.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 4, 2016 - 03:49pm PT
Carbon taxes such as in BC and the initiative in next week's Washington state initiative 732 are only a start, but are far more effective and predictable that cap and trade schemes. You may have heard that the cap and trade in California lately has brought in very little money.

In general the wind, solar and green car incentives are working. No government policy is perfect. We can all find countless flaws and loopholes. For instance California does little about old cars and trucks that are highly polluting, hardly charging any yearly fee. But those flaws pale in comparison to massive climate change.

Yes such taxes need to be national and soon thereafter international. We would need to impose import taxes on countries that don't have a similar tax/incentive/reduction plan, although we might need to give a timeline of penalties.

However by the same reasoning, shouldn't the US + Canada + Mexico, etc be paying high taxes on exports to those countries that already have high carbon taxes/disincentives/policies/low use? (Europe for example)

Washington Initiative 732
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/conservative-economist-supports-carbon-tax-washington-state/

A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (just like I said in various posts on Jan 7 2015 here)
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2559213#msg2559213

This tax is actually opposed by a number of rabid eco-morons like the Sierra Club, who think it should not be revenue neutral and all the money should go to their pet causes.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 4, 2016 - 03:50pm PT
Irrelevant arguments:
Hypocrisy
There will always be hypocrites. They are irrelevant. As I said years ago on the other thread, Climate change control is a societal decision, not a personal one. Loopholes and exceptions don't change the science or the general solutions. As long as we have a society with freedom and large inequities, some people consume more than others. You can only provide incentives and disincentives and allow people to make their own choices.
Right now we incentivize large cars, large homes, sprawl, free roads, free emissions, free water pollution from countless spills and leaks, wars for oil, etc.

Airplane business will be hurt.
That is correct. Traveling is a large contributor to climate change.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:12pm PT
Splatter is correct.

We can't solve the problem individually or all at once but we cam modify our lifestyles slightly and help. DMT thinks because he can't fix it himself and fix it today that he has a good reason to give up and quit. He is a tired worn out quitter who will be dealt with through generational turnover.

The best most of us can do is modify our lifestyles (food, mpg, voting choices, etc.) and help a little.
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:16pm PT
August West, thanks for the cartoon, I looked its source up and it sure seems reliable and fact. Current path seems like the Al Gore predictions are well under way, as in any day now we fry.

Maemute, that is not an intelligent response. Just to be clear on what you are suggesting.

Are you saying that all of the current climate change and/or global warming is 100% human caused?

And, are you stating for a fact that all climate changes/global warming are 100% a result of C02 increases?

Are you also stating as fact that C02 changes are followed by temperature changes and if so, are you 100% dismissing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that C02 follows rather than proceeds temperature changes?

Certainly debatable in the scienetific community, but its still a big and non-consensus question of what comes first - C02 increases or temperature rising.

Careful here!

And, no one wants to answer the questions of what percent we are really responsible for and what percent we can really change or effect?

Am I really helping by driving a Prius while most of middle Africa cooks on open fires with local gathered wood and India and China have no state emission shops for their buggies.

snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:22pm PT
DMT,

BS!!! You are in favor of quitting because it's hard and scary and uncertain.

If you were in favor of solutions you would have read the few I suggested and taken time to ponder them rather than cherry pick something to refute OUT OF CONTEXT.

Check Mate.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:30pm PT
BobSFN,

Why don't you get off your lazy bum and use that thing the kids call Google?

You are Exhibit A on why this issue rages on. You want someone else to do all the heavy, uncomfortable, difficult lifting for you. Go to the NASA webpage and spend some time reading about climate change. Put on your big boy pants. You can do it.
snagglepuss

Mountain climber
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:31pm PT
Thanks DMT but it's not a game.
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 4, 2016 - 04:57pm PT
Well Snagglepuss, I do, and I read a lot, and it is from Nasa and other webpages (as you call them) that present current and sometimes changing data. Not everything new is a conspiracy against the rich or fittest.

And,thanks for making the partial point that puss'es like you malign the sender rather than defend the questions. Personal attacks do little for mature thinking people.

You are Exhibit A thru Z why people are drifting away from believing in Climate Change. I used believe it and defend it. I thought all the data was in and the science was settled. You, still pushing the old agenda, not willing to accept any new information or challenge the norms (with its obvious apparent political and monetary influences) leads to ignorance.

Go ahead and quote the oft used 97% of researchers or scientist have reached a consensus - but don't bother to look at the independent evidence that this poll or statistic may be flawed. It is!

I honestly see more and more scientist, articles and data moving away from wholly anthropogenic global warming. What was predicted did NOT happen, or is NOT happening. And, 'after the fact' studies do not support the presupposed predictions or computer models.

Look, I have no skin in the game. Just like hearing and knowing the truth. History is full of examples of deniers of some sort or another, but history always vindicates the truth - and I see science and minds changing.

Or, you can continue to hump someone legs hoping for a 'noble' and 'holier than thou' persona.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:16pm PT
basic reading
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
It's a good question - thanks for asking it! Like why aren't people more concerned about a Trump presidency? Why aren't more people concerned about a Clinton presidency?

IMHO, the causes and processes and reasons behind people's beliefs and behaviors is quickly becoming a much more important field for us to understand with respect to our species' survival.

But when you ask this question, mostly we jump to conclusions, and solutions, and arguments, without really understanding that those aren't really the questions that we most need to answer.

97% of scientists agree that the pace of climate change we are now seeing is anthropogenic. Yea scientists!

But so what? When you look at who is most or more concerned about it, there's a 30-50% difference in how severe the problem is, based on what? Partisan political association, of course. What do your friends think? How does that belief mesh with the pantheon of other beliefs that help you form your identity?

Who else is not really concerned about climate change? People in countries with high per capita carbon emissions - the US, Australia, Canada, Russia. Not the countries with less information, but the countries with more of a vested interest in believing that it's no big deal.

"Who believes what" is not based on facts.

Given (IMHO) the seriousness of this threat, and the escalating disassociation between humans and knowledge/objective information that we're witnessing in this election, and the increasing freedom that we have to validate and confirm whatever self-serving, bullshit belief we want to confirm, yea, I don't have the answers, but I do think that's the most important question that we're facing today - why do we believe the nonsense we believe?

IMHO, we need to lose our tendency towards the arrogant belief that we humans form beliefs based on objective information, and develop a better understanding of how those human belief processes really work, or it's not going to matter how good our science is, how convincing our arguments are (to ourselves), when we're mostly not even noticing our most important challenge, which IMHO is how to get people to believe the truth.

We're developing more and more powerful tools - more and more scientific understanding of reality, and how to manipulate and affect it. But we're not understanding how we humans who control that power work - how we form beliefs - and that lack of self-understanding is becoming a larger and larger existential threat.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:32pm PT
To be a leader in Environmentalism you have to practice what you preach.

Look at your complete climbing resume, how many gallons of fuel made that happen?

People hear you say fossil fuels are going to kill humanity; yet you live a high carbon footprint lifestyle.

2016 NIMBY

I admire people that make personal sacrifice for the greater good. But no, I don't expect. I don't see Republicans, who are red in the face about the National Debt, voluntarily making extra tax payments in order to reduce it.

I support policies that would cause societal changes. For instance, I would support ramping up a carbon tax to say $100/tons over the next decade or two. That would make my fossil fuel electricity and my gallons of fuel more expensive.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:39pm PT

Are you saying that all of the current climate change and/or global warming is 100% human caused?

And, are you stating for a fact that all climate changes/global warming are 100% a result of C02 increases?

Are you also stating as fact that C02 changes are followed by temperature changes and if so, are you 100% dismissing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that C02 follows rather than proceeds temperature changes?

Certainly debatable in the scienetific community, but its still a big and non-consensus question of what comes first - C02 increases or temperature rising.

Careful here!

And, no one wants to answer the questions of what percent we are really responsible for and what percent we can really change or effect?

Am I really helping by driving a Prius while most of middle Africa cooks on open fires with local gathered wood and India and China have no state emission shops for their buggies.

When you run computers that try and reproduce the climate/temperature changes of the past (going back as far as any sort of useful data can be determined), you can get good results when you include the rapid rise in CO2 of the last few decades. Without including that extra CO2, you can't reproduce the recent rise in temperatures. For practical purposes, all of the increase in the last 100 years CO2 is manmade. You don't get that quick of changes in CO2 from natural causes. (Volcanoes have some effect but the effect from volcanoes can be modeled, certainly over the last dozen decades when CO02 has really started rising.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:43pm PT
You are Exhibit A thru Z why people are drifting away from believing in Climate Change. I used believe it and defend it. I thought all the data was in and the science was settled.

That's because the science is settled.

I honestly see more and more scientist, articles and data moving away from wholly anthropogenic global warming.

Well, nobody ever said global warming was caused 100% by anthropogenic causes. Mankind is clearly driving it though.

What was predicted did NOT happen, or is NOT happening. And, 'after the fact' studies do not support the presupposed predictions or computer models.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about that. While we can't prove that global warming is causing the weird weather events we are experiencing, the increasing drought in the southwest, increased rains and flooding in the midwest and east, etc. are exactly what the global warming model predicted.

Curt
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:44pm PT
From a technical and economic perspective, I think drastic changes all possible over a few decades.

Politically. no.
Flip Flop

climber
Earth Planet, Universe
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:44pm PT
We've got enough popcorn and it's getting to the exciting part.
guyman

Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
Nov 4, 2016 - 05:53pm PT
I am very lucky to live "in the age of the car" .... I get to go climbing almost every weekend to some far away place, like Bishop or the Valley.

I pack on about 25,000 mile per year in my Honda.

You all can give up your cars, stop flying around and ride a bike everyplace.... think about all the GOOD your doing, my my... think about this... China is building new coal powered electrical plants at a furious pace...

we cant do squat to change it.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 4, 2016 - 06:21pm PT
The new electric Chevy Bolt has a range of 238 miles per EPA, maybe 200 miles in real life, with a 60 kW-hr battery. 0-60mph in 6.3 sec. If you really want more I'm sure you could figure out how to add another 30 kW-hr backup. People with home solar panels use little net electricity even with an e-car.
They don't have the fast charging network of Tesla yet, but e-cars and chargers are still new and improving.


Thanks to government incentives!
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2016 - 06:49pm PT
Thank god I don't have kids, and don't plan too. If I did I'd feel really guilty about the shape earth is, & will be. I just selfishly hope that I can afford to retire in 17 years, and the places I love aren't too miserable to enjoy from April to November.
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:02pm PT
A couple of questions: Again, I really don’t have any skin in the game in that I am an absolute denier – nor am I a fanatical promoter of saving the planet from almost certain impending doom. Just an observer that likes to eventually find out the truth!


Malemut – your answer to several of my questions states that it is a biased and useless question. What parts? Are we, or are we not - as humans - responsible for the climate change? If we are, then how did we do it If we are not, then what can we do about it – realistically percentage wise. Your just parroting talking points.

You say: show me in Nature and Science. Nature and Science have been wrong before – and admitted it. In the late 80’s, Science published an article on psychiatric discriminates. It was peer reviewed and accepted. It was also published in the sister magazine in England – Nature. Turns out that most of the data – peer reviewed – was wrong and blatantly bogus. Companies developing patents around the new technology and data base lost hundreds of millions of dollars. They, of course, tried to sue, but Science just parroted: Peer reviewed, not our fault, peer reviewed, not our fault. Case closed.


Which brings up the publications of peer reviewed scientific articles. Isn’t that exactly what most of the Climate Gate 2009 email exposure was about – that of Michael Mann and Phil Jones (and dozens of others) regulating, overseeing, and controlling what was considered peer reviewed and acceptable? Seems that it was. And, regardless of how many you have personally read, cross-referenced, believe or support, or think were wrong or would ignore – thousands can’t all be wrong or made up or swept under a rug.


Take the time to read the whole story in whatever publication you believe – they all can’t be wrong. You have to admit –there was serious smoke that erupted in fire there and lead many to take a second look at the so called facts of the science and the publications - all peer reviewed!


So Malemut, I am taking the time to read basic stuff – and I get more enlightened about the possibility of overstating or exaggeration with everything I currently read – peer reviewed – of course.



I get what August West is saying – and I mostly believe it. Running computer models seems like a good way to start – but why different results now from what they really predicted and claim they initially got. I get that the emergency had to go out and the call to arms needed to be made – but for what reason, now - looking back.



Curt suggest that the science is settled. OK,(I don’t agree that science is ever settled ) but say it is regarding C02 and green house effects and everything else we currently understand about reflections, etc. So, again, why nothing happening. He suggests it is happening.

Really, watch Al Gore (and all of the Michael Mann/Phil Jones minions) again. Listen to their prophecies. Look at their time table and doomsday clock. It’s up, and nothing happened. Florida under water? Manhattan with water in the streets to mid town? North Pole will be ice free by 2015?

No Rapture, no Y2K, no mass migrations around the world and crop failures, nothing. But, global warming alarmist always get a pass. Because no matter what happens, it’s a change in the weather – so see, I told you so. Some warm areas, some cold, some rain somewhere, some hurricanes – like we have a real conceptual grasp of anything but the last few hundred years to compare to.


Is there more to this rush to judgment than saving the planet? Could it be money or global-political social engineering? What really drives the hysteria.

Why isn’t Malemut or Curt or others more worried about the Carrington Event in 1859 happening again – we are overdue! Why not freak out and try to warn everyone about the near miss reported on the NASA website of July 2012 when a huge coronal mass ejection tore through the earth’s orbit, but earth wasn’t home for the event – just barely missed us.


So, again I ask.

What percent of climate change are we humans responsible for?

Is it all the industrial age?

What percent of climate change is the rascally U.S. responsible for?

If we turn off the lights in the U.S., what percent of change will result in saving the world/planet? 1%? 10%? 0%?

If the whole world turns off the lights and goes completely out of business – what changes will result at this point in saving the planet?


My prediction, my computer model. Nothing will happen significantly in the coming years. The earth will roll on and absorb the mess (as it has before). Technology will vastly improve the C02 problem and a number of other so-called life threatening events.

Just my 2cents and now I'm bored with it.


Jon Nelson

Boulder climber
Bellingham, WA
Nov 4, 2016 - 10:47pm PT
Malemute wrote:
^ I studied IR (infrared) and Raman spectroscopy in university.
You are wrong.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
...

That's nice that you studied those things. I suppose that is supposed to make you right?

The blanket analogy is, as I said, a wrong analogy. Sure, the gases and particles absorb some IR, but that absorption does not determine what they emit. What they emit, as you know, is determined by their temperature and their emissivity. And what you do not seem to know is that the temperature of the troposphere is determined by convection and thermodynamics.



Do you know why it is colder at higher elevations? Air that rises loses energy. Radiation has nothing to do with it. We model it accurately with only thermodynamics.

As I said, the 'greenhouse' misnomer is unfortunate. There is an effect, and it is indeed very large. But about the actual mechanism, be careful about believing what you see in these simplified diagrams.

Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 6, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
Moose, I don't agree with much that utilities have said in the past regarding solar generation, but on this, I agree. Rooftop solar generators (and others) get a "free ride" that others, especially the poor, help subsidize.

It's all well and good to feed your excess energy back into the grid and receive cash back for it, but the costs of your usage of that same grid get picked up by non-solar generators who must then pick up those added costs. This should end....another instance of greenwashing crappy energy policy that ends up costing poor people the most.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 6, 2016 - 07:29pm PT
Al,
Making users of brown energy pay for their external costs is a GOOD thing.
For 100 years we have FAILED to charge emissions and pollution sources for the damage they create.
But that shifting generally doesn't fall onto the poor, since we subsidize utility bills for the poor in most states. And in California we have higher rates for higher usage brackets.

Washington state proposal Lots of details Here: https://yeson732.org/faq/
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 6, 2016 - 07:42pm PT
"the damage they create" is what we call modern life.

"the damage they create" is more than outweighed by greatly increased life expectancy, and infant mortality near zero.

"the damage they create" powers the machines that do things like harvest our food, wash our clothes, and vacuum our floors, freeing up time for us to do other things - like cure diseases and climb rocks.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 6, 2016 - 08:08pm PT
Maybe it's the hypocrisy:

"Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself"
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 6, 2016 - 08:48pm PT
For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself

But....but....So many people depend on him!

:)
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 7, 2016 - 06:50am PT
Don't listen to Al Gore. Look at the data and listen to the scientists involved.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 7, 2016 - 06:57am PT

(Marrakech, 4 November 2016) – A big green light for faster, stronger climate action was switched on today as the Paris Climate Change Agreement entered into force, only three days before the start of this year’s UN Climate Change Conference in Marrakech.

“The Paris Agreement’s ambitious and essential goals are now a live reality for every government. From today, ever-increasing climate action becomes an accepted responsibility and a central part of the sustainable development plans of all countries,” said Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” -James Hansen
Banquo

climber
Amerricka
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:01am PT
"Truth" does not exist. This is what conspiracy theory nut jobs (CTNJ) don't understand. The scientific method does not seek and cannot find a single absolute truth. To have truth requires faith and religion is where you find that.

Faith did not get jumbo jets to fly. Science did. Science is about the practical and useful, not truth seeking.

Name one absolute truth. Will the sun come up tomorrow? Probably but there is some very tiny probability that it will not. That probability is very small and I personally will, for practical purposes, assume that the sun will come up tomorrow. A CSNJ might claim the sun won't come up someday and the government is hiding the "truth" from us.

What good science does is take all the available data and create a model that fits the data. The model is useful but may be flawed. As new and better data becomes available, the model may be refined or replaced. We should work with the best model that we have at any given time. At one time the earth was considered flat and that worked well enough. Then we found that round worked better so we went with that. Now it isn't exactly round so we have refined that model.

Scientific tools tell us how to calculate a trajectory to Mars. The tools are not exact (true) so along the way we still need to adjust the path.

The current best data and model is that human activity is warming the planet. A person who understands science will happily tell you that human influenced climate change is not a "truth" but it is what experts qualified in the field believe right now. Unless you are an expert qualified in the field, I don't care what your model for climate change is.

The black swan theory. A scientist goes out and looks at as many swans as he can find. This is 19th century England and he can't afford to randomize and sample the whole world population of swans but he looks at the ones he can find. This is the best science available to him at the time. He finds 1000 swans and they are all white. His theory is then that all swans are white (ASAW). He is quite smart and has an understanding of statistics and probability. He knows his sampling isn't perfect and that he hasn't seen all of the swans that there are. He can't claim ASAW is a "truth" but he can use ASAW as a useful approximation for his daily expectations. If he ever acquires reliable data about the existence of a black or pink swan, he will need to adjust his theory but ASAW may still be fine for his daily life.

The real problem is that most people decide what they want to believe and then set about justifying it while disregarding probability. Most people do not practice, do not understand or probably don't even know about objective, critical thinking.

Read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winner Daniel Kahneman.

Read Karl Popper for a different take on the scientific method.

The aptly named James Reason has written several books on human error that are worth reading.

After you have read those, get back to me and let me know what you think.
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:16am PT
Banquo -- "Truth" does not exist.

Banquo -- Name one absolute truth.

Banquo -- "Truth" does not exist.

You made an absolute, you are a hypocrite .....
John M

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:18am PT
this is interesting. The Inuit are saying that the pole has shifted. Not just the magnetic pole, but the physical pole.

http://www.neonnettle.com/sphere/375-inuit-elders-issue-official-warning-to-nasa-the-earth-has-shifted-
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:20am PT
That's far too much heady stuff for today's "post factual" society, Banquo. If this election cycle has proved anything it's that a very significant and influential segment of our population doesn't care about "facts" or "reason". Hell, even some here have "reasoned" their own twisted way into "facts" of their own making...all evidence to the contrary be damned.

WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:32am PT
The absolute fact is:

The further humanity's consciousness strays from nature the more the climate will change to make humanity suffer ......
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:38am PT
I wouldn't laugh too hard, Moose, the Inuit are some of the smartest people I've known.
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:40am PT
Yes ....

Modern scientists are puffed up with scientism and hypocrisy ......
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 7, 2016 - 07:56am PT
Keep it moving folks, nothing to see here...

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2510/see-how-arctic-sea-ice-is-losing-its-bulwark-against-warming-summers/
John M

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 08:04am PT
I don't believe he is laughing at the idea the the inuit are incapable of schooling NASA.. It more just the picture of the little guy up against the big boys. At least thats they way I read moose. My moose tracker might be off. hahaha..

John M.. formerly known as moosie.

edit" he beat me too it.

oops. and I was wrong.. hmmm
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 08:06am PT
Modern science brains are wobbling .....
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Nov 7, 2016 - 08:41am PT
I get that some people lack the education or the intellectual capacity to appreciate the beauty of mathematics, to feel the joy of creating an engineering project that performs as expected, to heal a sick person, the awesome power to give life where nature would have taken it, the deep satisfaction of examining a seemingly impossible and complex problem and breaking it down into smaller steps and through dogged persistence and application of the scientific method to find answers for the parts and assemble them into a whole, to take a spot of human ignorance and turn it into a spot of human insight.

I understand that for some people, these things being forever out of grasp, they grab onto what they can, which is faith that a higher power will make everything ok for them and their families.

What I don't get is why such people don't embrace scientists and engineers and physicians as their higher power, as people who overcome impossibilities to make life easier, healthier, etc. Why is our history filled with fear of the occult, persecution of witches, and in general the defilement of people that tangibly and demonstrably improve the lives of people around them?

Are people so petty that they are jealous of others having more power and ability than themselves? This was my experience of high school in an area where few went on to college. Or is it fear and insecurity that those with more power will squash them as inconsequential bugs? By believing in an elusive higher power outside the domain of a person with more power in this world, does it give a person more dignity or more power in this world? Maybe just more "peace of mind" is enough. But that peace of mind is expensive when it comes with a pride or egoism that forbids the acceptance of good and real things in this world. Fear of knowledge is a deeply anchored foundation of faith-based religions- don't eat the forbidden fruit. Lest ye be cast from the garden of Eden. Ignorance is bliss. So many people trying to find their way back to it.


Jody, why do you selectively use the parts of human knowledge that serve you well (optical lenses, transistor physics for light collection and data storage, and everything that makes the Internet possible) while spitting on the parts that don't give you a short-term gratification?

There is a difference between faith-based religion where nobody can prove any of it, and it is by definition a leap of faith, versus reason-based science where each piece can be logically demonstrated and proven through a set of previously established facts and experiments. The biggest trap many people seem to fall into is to confuse these two, because they don't understand any bit of science and it is all just as much a leap of faith for them. Just because you are ignorant (literally, IGNORING the data in front of you and the whole opportunity for education presented to you in school so you would be able to decipher fact from fiction and perform your own experiments or data validation to decide what is real)- I say again, just because you choose to be ignorant, does not mean that science requires a leap of faith. There are educated guesses based on observations, but the veracity of these increase or decrease with time based on logical tests and independent collections of observations that agree or disagree with the original hypothesis.


^^^^

That is what I wrote, but what will be perceived is "blab bla bla you're stupid bla bla bla" and the world keeps turning and half the world continues to benefit from the work of the people they spit on. Same as it ever was.


Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2016 - 08:56am PT
this is interesting. The Inuit are saying that the pole has shifted. Not just the magnetic pole, but the physical pole.

Interesting, but this phenomenon has been understood for a couple thousand years now.

http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-precession.html

Curt
c wilmot

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 09:04am PT
It can be argued that math and science are precisely to blame for climate change. Had we stayed an agrarian society instead of becoming an industrial one our carbon footprint would not be nearly as bad. More so the people engineering our increasingly automated society are the ones creating more climate change while reaping the profits From the waste and pollution produced as a result. They are also usually living lavish lifestyles well beyond what is necessary. Do these people really care about climate change? Perhaps the peasant masses don't bow down because people with power like Bono who preach the most are often the worst offenders. Not to mention that power and success are not a measure of value as a human. And what your "better" than someone else at can quickly become inconsequential. As Many egostistical athletes find out when their superiority is lost to injury
John M

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 09:08am PT
Fear of knowledge is a deeply anchored foundation of faith-based religions

maybe in some churches, but not in any of the churches that I belonged to. I grew up in the Baptist church. And my family reached out to people of many different faiths. we had all kinds of scientists visiting and staying with us. My father worked for aero Jet test firing rocket engines.

There is a movement in the fundamentalist church that interprets the bible literally. Its these people who have trouble with science. But to say that all faith based religions have a fear of knowledge is ignorant.

Edit: Moose.. not trolling, but I do see your point about the telescopes not tracking. I was genuinely interested in why the Inuit would say that the Sun is setting in a different place then it had for years. They live outdoors. They don't use electronics. They depend on their observations of nature.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 7, 2016 - 09:23am PT
Moosie, there are different ways of seeing. I 'saw' for the first time in an Inuit 'sweat' lodge. ;-)
Banquo

climber
Amerricka
Nov 7, 2016 - 09:27am PT
Those interested should also read Bronislaw Malinowski's Magic Science and Religion, 1948. He says that no society, no matter how primitive, practices magic, science and religion.

Science is learning that water helps plants grow and cooking improves food. Observable and useful. A person can intervene on their own part.

Magic is trying to influence the course of nature that is not understood by science. Magic is usually some sort of rites and rituals. A person typically asks somebody else, a shaman perhaps, to intervene on their part.

Religion is an effort to control things so abstract that we don't really understand what it is such as the afterlife. We ask some imagined higher power to intervene on our behalf.

As science advances, the need for magic and religion declines. Sadly, most religion is static and resists this advance of civilization. Most of our population has difficulty accepting advances in science that are inconvenient while heartily accepting the conveniences.
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 09:32am PT
Banquo -- "We ask some imagined higher power to intervene on our behalf."

Another absolute made by the very same person who claims there are no absolutes.

Hypocrisy and scientism ....... again .....
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 7, 2016 - 11:58am PT
Hey without science we would not have nylon ropes
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 7, 2016 - 12:07pm PT
What could be more appropriate for dirtbags?
WBraun

climber
Nov 7, 2016 - 12:11pm PT
without science

Yes

Without science, there wouldn't be anything at all just about.

Thus science is absolute and is also absolutely required for knowledge.

The modern science has been watered down to cherry picking and biased by poor incomplete consciousness.

Thus the modern scientists are absolute hypocrites and preaching scientism by saying there are no absolutes .....
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 7, 2016 - 12:28pm PT
In fact, about the only place left on Earth where lawmakers openly and avidly deny the science of climate change is the U.S. Congress. More to the point, says Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii and a leader on climate policy, "There is only one major political party in the world that denies the existence of climate change. And it happens to be in charge of the most important political body in the world."

Good reads here

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/why-republicans-still-reject-the-science-of-global-warming-w448023
Banquo

climber
Amerricka
Nov 7, 2016 - 12:46pm PT
Werner,

Banquo is a fictional character in a very old story - an abstraction. Don't take anything he says too seriously or literally. Yes, he is a hypocrite. He is morally bound to be because he took a hypocritical oath.
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Nov 7, 2016 - 02:14pm PT
So why do the deniers deny it?
It's really no skin off their teeth.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 8, 2016 - 07:57am PT
The twenty-second session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 22) and the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 12) will be held in Bab Ighli, Marrakech, Morocco from 7-18 November 2016.

On 5 October 2016, the threshold for entry into force of the Paris Agreement was achieved. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016. As a result, the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1) will take place in Marrakech in conjunction with COP 22 and CMP 12.

BEIJING—China’s government said it would raise coal power capacity by as much as 20% by 2020, ensuring a continuing strong role for the commodity in the country’s energy sector despite a pledge to bring down pollution levels.

In a new five-year plan for electricity released Monday, the National Energy Administration said it would raise coal-fired power capacity from around 900 gigawatts last year to as high as 1,100 gigawatts by 2020. The roughly 200-gigawatt increase alone is more than the total power capacity of Canada.

By announcing a huge increase in coal power on the first day of this year's climate conference, China is sending the World a clear message.
Chewybacca

Trad climber
Kelly Morgan, Whitefish MT
Nov 8, 2016 - 08:08am PT
If people don't care about the 3.4 million people who die every year from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, why would they care about the effects of ACC?
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 8, 2016 - 01:59pm PT
whether or not humankind is to blame, unchangeable patterns have been established that may lead to dramatic consequences.
The next century may see electrical aquacars navigating the lakes of Miami.

But keep pedaling.
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 8, 2016 - 02:07pm PT
Check out Harold Wanless for a grim view of the future Florida underwater.
He is a respected scientist and a great guy.
Jon Nelson

Boulder climber
Bellingham, WA
Nov 9, 2016 - 05:08pm PT
It means I know how & why greenhouse gas molecules absorb the PHOTONS of infrared radiation, and release PHOTONS of infrared radiation.

Sure, the gases and particles absorb some IR, but that absorption does not determine what they emit
You don't have a clue.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

Read this & educate yourself
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/genchem1/l15/web-l15.pdf




Do you know what these images show? Do you know why there are discrete spikes?

Your uninformed opinions mean squat.

Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0709894

The answer to the second two questions are yes, to a degree. Could be I understand radiation more than you. But I am not here to argue from authority or to list my qualifications. That's not how ideas are settled.

Anyway, I was making a point about the so-called greenhouse effect, not the physics of radiation. It is a widely misunderstood effect, and much larger than commonly thought.

Your errors were in the atmospheric science, not the radiation, as I explained. But they are common errors. I am sorry that I offended you by pointing that out. Peace.



Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Nov 15, 2016 - 12:56pm PT
If anyone's interested, Chiloe was on my local NPR station (WEVO) this morning talking about a study that he's the lead on, regarding climate change acceptance and partisanship. I'd always guessed that he was involved in environmental sociology, and this is that sort of thing.

Nice job dude!

On the radio;
nhpr.org/post/unh-research-shows-political-leanings-can-affect-perceptions-climate-change

The whole enchilada;
http://soc.sagepub.com/content/50/5/913.full.pdf
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 15, 2016 - 03:06pm PT
Don't worry Jon Nelson, Malemut doesn't answer questions - he just keeps plugging away with his propaganda and current talking points.

No response from him from weeks ago regarding this below.


From November 4th, 2016

Malemut – your answer to several of my questions states that it is a biased and useless question. What parts? Are we, or are we not - as humans - responsible for the climate change? If we are, then how did we do it If we are not, then what can we do about it – realistically percentage wise. Your just parroting talking points.

You say: show me in Nature and Science. Nature and Science have been wrong before – and admitted it. In the late 80’s, Science published an article on psychiatric discriminates. It was peer reviewed and accepted. It was also published in the sister magazine in England – Nature. Turns out that most of the data – peer reviewed – was wrong and blatantly bogus. Companies developing patents around the new technology and data base lost hundreds of millions of dollars. They, of course, tried to sue, but Science just parroted: Peer reviewed, not our fault, peer reviewed, not our fault. Case closed.


Which brings up the publications of peer reviewed scientific articles. Isn’t that exactly what most of the Climate Gate 2009 email exposure was about – that of Michael Mann and Phil Jones (and dozens of others) regulating, overseeing, and controlling what was considered peer reviewed and acceptable? Seems that it was. And, regardless of how many you have personally read, cross-referenced, believe or support, or think were wrong or would ignore – thousands can’t all be wrong or made up or swept under a rug.


Take the time to read the whole story in whatever publication you believe – they all can’t be wrong. You have to admit –there was serious smoke that erupted in fire there and lead many to take a second look at the so called facts of the science and the publications - all peer reviewed!


So Malemut, I am taking the time to read basic stuff – and I get more enlightened about the possibility of overstating or exaggeration with everything I currently read – peer reviewed – of course.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 15, 2016 - 03:17pm PT
BobS,
it is unlikely anyone is going to waste their time attempting to explain basic accepted science to you. The information you should read has already been posted numerous times. Why didn't you read it then? After thousands of repeated attempts at reason, why would further repeats have a different effect this time?
Any remaining climate deniers in the world are generally so emotionally and religiously invested that they are immune to reason.
Anyone who brings up fake issues like "climategate" or a magazine from the 70s is hopelessly unscientific.
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 15, 2016 - 03:30pm PT
Under Trump a lot less may be concerned, especially when he gets the govt stacked with flat Earth creationists
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 15, 2016 - 04:09pm PT
No problem Splater, I completely understand. If you and others keep saying 'the science is settled' long enough, and attacking anyone who raises a question with the 'your stupid' factor - you think eventually everyone will agree with you - if anyone is left even interested.

The article mentioned was from Science and also published in Nature - your standards in this thread of what should be looked at as the gold standard. It was not from the 70's, but 1989. It was peer reviewed! It was bullshit! And they admitted it. Just one example.

And, just by you calling 'ClimateGate' fake - does not sweep all of the readable evidence under a rug. I am sure you wish it could. Perhaps you could explain why is it fake, or just a fraction of the conflicts it presents of maybe exaggerating or overstating a few peoples desired and paid for outcomes.

I like your word 'reason'. Reason seems to be based on empirical evidence, and (as you should know) empirical evidence is based on verifiable observations and experience - not theory.

So, we have about .74 degrees shift for about 100 years of data after the fact, and we have maybe less than a half of a degree of shift (warmer or cooling - experts can't quite decide) in the last 16 years, AND nothing you predicted in a catastrophic way came true.

Fact!

Give it up pal. It ain't working for your prophets of doom.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 15, 2016 - 04:18pm PT
Some good reading here for those who still have their head in the sand. Not that it will make any difference to them.

Although scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change,[12][13] the politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.[14][15][16] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[17][18]

...In his final chapter, Gordin turns to the new phase of pseudoscience, practiced by a few rogue scientists themselves. Climate change denialism is the prime example, where a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels. Scientists have watched in disbelief that as the evidence for global warming has become ever more solid, the deniers have been increasingly successful in the public and political arena. … Today pseudoscience is still with us, and is as dangerous a challenge to science as it ever was in the past.[126]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Curt
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 15, 2016 - 04:33pm PT
Turns out more folks are more concerned in calling it a hoax than trying to negate it.
More pipelines,fracking and lets burn some more coal.
Let's make America great again.

Maybe we can get some Acid Rain going again.
The Chief would call me a hipocrite......lol.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:14pm PT
Again, those who either deny science or don't understand it will probably be unfazed, but...


Curt
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:21pm PT
that warming stall between 1946-1980 is attributed to increasing aerosol emissions (which cool the climate). In the 1980's we decreased man made aerosol and temperate increases started taking off
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:31pm PT
We should definitely add some aerosols.hs
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:39pm PT
The cause has been established, Curt.

What do you DO about it?

Sometimes I think you guys would rather argue with each other over the cause than to actually do anything.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:50pm PT
The answer to the second two questions are yes, to a degree. Could be I understand radiation more than you. But I am not here to argue from authority or to list my qualifications. That's not how ideas are settled.

Anyway, I was making a point about the so-called greenhouse effect, not the physics of radiation. It is a widely misunderstood effect, and much larger than commonly thought.

Your errors were in the atmospheric science, not the radiation, as I explained. But they are common errors. I am sorry that I offended you by pointing that out. Peace.



Jon Nelson, in your attack on Malemute you do a poor job of explaining where he is wrong for the rest of us. You should try harder. When Malemute first mentioned the effect the of the cloud he was correct, regardless of mentioning the blanket. The water vapor in the cloud creates more of a localized warming effect that just the co2 in the atmosphere that it is located in. What you say about calling it the radiation effect is fine, but the blanket is fine too in describing an increased localized effect because of the way a cloud (H2O molecules ) temporarily adds to the effect of the CO2 that is already there. The word CLOUD for information storage is not a great analogy either, but we all understand what it means. Why the animosity? So, do you think Humans are causing the climate change and warming?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:56pm PT
Chas ,thanks , I live off the grid and only burn biodiesel,thanks for being like The Chief.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 15, 2016 - 05:59pm PT
People aren't more concerned about it because we all need gas fueled cars to commute and earn a living...Any bad news that goes against the grain of earning a living is easily dismissed especially when the people supplying the oil calm the consumers fear by telling them climate change is a hoax...Kind of like the tobacco companies telling their addicts that smoking doesn't cause cancer...
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:02pm PT
Fact:
Warming 1.1 degree C so far (1.6 degrees F) over the last 100 years, most of which has occurred since 1970.
1970 is about when global CO2 levels really blasted off.
And the warming rate is more like .15 C per decade over the last 40 years,
and .2 C per decade over the last 30 years.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-201609.html

(Curt's chart above is zeroed at about the year 1950; add another .23 C to zero it at about 1915.)

We are quite on the path predicted by the accepted scientific consensus (which is determined by thousands of experts, not some little nutty self-confirming nonsense pulled off breitfart).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-accurately-predicting-ocean-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?c=6

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections

more basics I posted before

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange

BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:09pm PT
O.K., Curt, I'll play along with the; 'type in google what you want to hear, search for it' and then cut and paste to supertopo!

Wow, Look what I found. See facts back up what I am saying. Even the New York Times in reporting (the paper that said yesterday, sorry to its reader for lying, and they will try to be more honest in the future).


As a long time legal analyst and attorney, I am only interested in the demonstrable facts, eye witnesses, and after the fact outcomes. Each side can drum up their own expert witness to testify complete opposites - and each sound so damn smart and convincing.

I'm not effected by emotion, or religion, or trumpisms. No interest in any of them. Are you?


My questions - still unanswered - were honest questions about hyperbole, exaggerations and false alarms, and if some might have skin in the game or money rewards for their opinions and alarms they were setting off.

Still don't know, as everyone just circle jerks each other with new cut and paste unreadable junk, and calls the honest inquirer the fool.

But, if anyone is just slightly confused or newly skeptical, and you wonder why all this hysteria of global warming and six feet of water coming to Miami could be true - google the 'CCX', 'cap and trade' reasons, Gore's company called 'GMI', 'Goldman Sachs Asset Management', and the trillions of dollars out there for the taking.

I'm again bored with this!




Posted on September 5, 2016 by John Hinderaker in Climate

Will 2016 Be the Hottest Year On Record?
“On record” meaning since the 1880s, i.e., the end of the Little Ice Age. The year is a long way from being over, but I will venture a guess that the alarmists will claim 2016, when in the books, was the hottest year evah. One problem, as we have pointed out many times, is that the books have been cooked.
The keeper of the U.S. temperature records is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is paid to be on board with global warming hysteria. How does NOAA stir up alarm? By changing the historic temperature record to make the past look cooler and the present warmer. Icecap explains:
NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest July.

It looks like there could be a little global warming going on, right? But the temperatures reported by NOAA are not the ones that were actually recorded. This is what the same graph looks like, before NOAA’s “adjustments.”

Oops. No global warming. Icecap quantifies the impact of NOAA’s “adjustments.”
The actual raw temperature data they use to generate their graph, shows one tenth as much warming from 1895 to 2016, with 1901, 1936 and 1934 as the hottest years.
If 1895 is removed, there is no warming at all.
***
NOAA creates this warming by massively cooling the past. They got rid of the hot 1901 by cooling it 2.13 degrees. They cooled 1936 by by 1.13 degrees and cooled 1934 by 1.11 degrees. That is what it took to elevate 2012 to the hottest July.
Emphasis added. So NOAA’s “adjustments” increase global warming by 1,000%. Gosh! Why might they do that?
The claimed warming trend in the US is completely fake, and is altered by people at NOAA who are being paid to push the global warming agenda. Before they were paid to push anthropogenic warming, the very same people at NOAA (i.e. Tom Karl) knew that there was no US warming.

That was reported by the New York Times, before the Times understood how global warming hysteria could be used to augment the power of government.
These NOAA data relate to the U.S., which comprises only a tiny percentage of the Earth’s surface. But, as Icecap points out, the U.S. data are critical to the warmist cause:
The US makes up less than 10% of the land surface, but contains the majority of the high quality long term temperature monitoring stations for this planet. The global surface temperature record is a farce, which is why the US data is so important.
As I have said many times before, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism is not an honest scientific mistake. It is a fraud, perpetrated for the usual reasons–money and power.

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:14pm PT
^^^ >>Bobstroll

100% troll nonsense idiocy garbage fake

Why did you start a new account just to post this tripe?
How much are you being paid by Koch, ALEC, Heartland?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:16pm PT
Splater...Thanks for the info but the people who need to read this are too busy celebrating Trumps victory and loading their Razors , dirtbikes , and portable honda generators onto their 2016 , bitchin , 10MPG Cummins Diesel ...
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:17pm PT
Robert L writes:

" Stop eating mass-farmed cattle
Ride your bike and walk for transport whenever possible. Otherwise catch public transport. Otherwise hold-off travel till more can be achieved in the one trip. Otherwise car pool.
Don't buy anything that is designed to fail or go out of fashion within 2-years "


If you look around the planet, the countries where the people do those things - like China, India - have the worst environmental problems.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:23pm PT
^^^
100% troll nonsense idiocy garbage fake

Fake alright. We have a relatively honest conversation going here with everyone else. It's easy to spot the trolls isn't it? He is only bored because he knows zilch about the subject. I was going to say the same about him 'working' for the other side.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 15, 2016 - 06:23pm PT
Good post Chaz.
Mchale as well.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 15, 2016 - 07:06pm PT
The Zen of spotting trolls!
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 15, 2016 - 08:01pm PT
Let's make America great again.

Maybe we can get some Acid Rain going again.
The Chief would call me a hipocrite......lol.

I want my dioxins back.

Scratch that. I want Trumps EPA pick (whoever that is) to have them...
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 16, 2016 - 07:56am PT
I love this drama. Reminds me of the old-timey bible-thumpers... preaching hellfire and damnation for all non-believers.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:22am PT
As a long time legal analyst and attorney...

Oh, that might be the problem--you may not understand how science works. Still, I'd think your standard then should be either a preponderance of the evidence or reasonable doubt. And, with respect to climate science even the higher standard has been met by those who understand the data. Anthropogenic global warming is very real beyond any reasonable doubt.

Curt
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:26am PT
So what do we DO about it?

I think you'd rather argue about the cause ( which is already settled ) than to do anything about it, or you'd be talking about a course of action.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:45am PT
^^^carbon tax - recognized as the most effective way to efficiently change carbon emission behavior.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:47am PT
Has ten years of Cap & Trade in California had any measureable effect?
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:15am PT


Sea ice loss is accelerating in the Barents and Kara Seas (BKS). Assessing potential linkages between sea ice retreat/thinning and the region's ancient and unique social–ecological systems is a pressing task. Tundra nomadism remains a vitally important livelihood for indigenous Nenets and their large reindeer herds. Warming summer air temperatures have been linked to more frequent and sustained summer high-pressure systems over West Siberia, Russia, but not to sea ice retreat. At the same time, autumn/winter rain-on-snow (ROS) events have become more frequent and intense. Here, we review evidence for autumn atmospheric warming and precipitation increases over Arctic coastal lands in proximity to BKS ice loss. Two major ROS events during November 2006 and 2013 led to massive winter reindeer mortality episodes on the Yamal Peninsula. Fieldwork with migratory herders has revealed that the ecological and socio-economic impacts from the catastrophic 2013 event will unfold for years to come. The suggested link between sea ice loss, more frequent and intense ROS events and high reindeer mortality has serious implications for the future of tundra Nenets nomadism.
Biology Letters Nov 2016
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:35am PT
Has ten years of Cap & Trade in California had any measureable effect?

are you asking this as a rhetorical question? if so, be less coy.

Cap & Trade is not a carbon tax... however, the most successful environmental mitigation, the reduction of CFC emission into the atmosphere, was based on Cap & Trade. This was an international agreement coming out of the Montreal Protocol, that curtailed the production of CFCs and decreased the amount of human released gases responsible for ozone layer depletion.

California Cap & Trade compliance became law in 2013, nearly four years ago...
the California GDP has been growing, the CO2 emissions per $GDP have been declining...

sounds like it is working.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:47am PT
^^ Thanks, Ed!

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:52am PT
Did anyone read the articles in my post from yesterday?

It directly relates to the title of the thread.

http://nhpr.org/post/unh-research-shows-political-leanings-can-affect-perceptions-climate-change

http://soc.sagepub.com/content/50/5/913.full.pdf
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 16, 2016 - 10:00am PT
^reading it right now Brandon - this is the same stuff that my partner does. TFPU!
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 16, 2016 - 10:51am PT

Those of you who want to see fundamental changes in human society? You need to recruit better sales people. The ones who have taken the jobs now can't sell sh#t.

Oh and a replacement for fossil fuels... that would be good too.

DMT

I expect the world to keep making some minor changes. For instance, concerns about climate change has caused more money to poor into renewables like solar and wind then would have happened otherwise.

But my expectations for change anywhere on the scale that is needed is quite low.

It's like arguing with a drug addict. I think making the argument is the humane thing to do. I think the prognosis is grim.

My hope for future Schadenfreude: I hope 30 years from now that all the climate deniers who troll on the internet have grandkids that can go back and read all the denials they posted...
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 16, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
If you look around the planet, the countries where the people do those things - like China, India - have the worst environmental problems.

Linking those two things as causative makes absolutely zero sense.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 16, 2016 - 02:25pm PT
The U.S. Geological Survey has made its largest discovery of recoverable crude ever under parts of West Texas, the federal agency announced Tuesday.

A recent assessment found the “Wolfcamp shale” geologic formation in the Midland area holds an estimated 20 billion barrels of accessible oil along with 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.6 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. That’s three times higher than the amount of recoverable crude the agency found in the Bakken-Three Forks region in the upper midwest in 2013, making it “the largest estimated continuous oil accumulation that USGS has assessed in the United States to date,” according to a statement.

“The fact that this is the largest assessment of continuous oil we have ever done just goes to show that, even in areas that have produced billions of barrels of oil, there is still the potential to find billions more,” said Walter Guidroz, program coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 16, 2016 - 03:23pm PT
carbon tax - recognized as the most effective way to efficiently change carbon emission behavior.

Ed, cap and trade can work the same as a carbon tax. Technically, any effluent charge can create the optimal amount of effluent discharge. Germany proved that in the Ruhr basin more than 50 years ago.

With that very minor qualification, you're absolutely correct. If you don't impose a cost on costly actions, you'll get too much of them.

I think you'd rather argue about the cause ( which is already settled )

I'm not sure that's entirely true. As Chaz says, the science strongly confirms the existence of anthropogenic global warming, but we're still quibbling over the exact relationship. The key word in the last sentence, however, is quibble.

Climate science differs from laboratory science in that we make statistical inferences from non-experimental data. That means that we have statistical margins of error. Those who wish to do nothing sieze on that fact to say "we don't know, so we shouldn't act." That's a non-sequitur. We know, just not how much. The funny thing about a margin of error is that we can not only overestimate the effect of anthropogenic carbon emissions, we can underestimate it, too.

I think DMT is correct that we don't do as much as the statistical and scientific evidence suggests, because we don't want to pay the cost in jobs, lifestyle changes, etc. Because, by and large, we don't pay directly for carbon emissions, we don't feel the effect of those emissions directly. That doesn't change the fact that humanity -- and the only world in which we live -- feels those effects completely.

John
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 16, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
I just want to say in response to DMT. I make less than 40k a year,I live completely off the grid (solar),burn less than 2% of my total fuel consumption in fossil fuels and am not hooked to anything but a cell phone service.
If I can do it ,a hell of a lot could do it as well.

I do not live in a cave.

I have every modern convienence ,I eat good as well.

It is education and commitment that drives one,not to mention fiscal decisions.
Not just one's wallet.

Yes I am poor salesman......lol

And ,my fuel is delivered.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 16, 2016 - 03:58pm PT
I can tell you why more Republicans don't worry about it -- it's because they're convinced it isn't real. I am completely flummoxed when I talk to smart Republicans (some of whom are by actual brothers) who seem to think that they know better than 95% of climate scientists! It's like they have temporarily lost their minds.

It does NOBODY any good to deny truth. The question of what we should and can do about it is a different matter altogether. What we should do about it is a question worthy of discourse between the right and left. Whether it is true or not is not open for discussion among non-experts.

Most of these same deniers have never bothered to read anything significant on the subject from a scientific standpoint.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 16, 2016 - 04:20pm PT
http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/carbon-dioxide-may-soon-be-used-make-fuel.htmlhttp://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/carbon-dioxide-may-soon-be-used-make-fuel.htmlI am a Carpenter,you know one of the first people out of work in a recession. I work pt in a bike shop ,groom at a local hill and sell NY's finest.
Yes, I rely on wood and building materials being delivered,made,extracted and then used at the site. I use quite a bit of reclaimed now and sustainable brands.
I would like to see that streamlined as well. It can.
I guess my point is ,if say 20% of our society did more ,a lot would change .

It is coming along,there are guys at RIT finding out that Co2 could become a transportation fuel. That would be huge.
If I made more,everything I own would be electric and rechargeable.

No one has to do anything,they may just want to,for future generations.
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 16, 2016 - 08:58pm PT
Because it is no big deal and there isn't anything we can do about it anyway.

As drumpf would say.....WRONG!

....but I can understand how basic scientific principles go right by the mathematically and scientifically illiterate.

After all, most people still believe that when Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff that his trajectory is flat til he slows down, stops, then falls. Right Jody?
Kalimon

Social climber
Ridgway, CO
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:06pm PT
Climate change is inevitable, with or without human influence . . . we are simply a catalyst for potentially catastrophic acceleration of natural cycles.

Deniers be liars.
patrick compton

Trad climber
van
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:41pm PT
people make their own reality for themselves these days

climate change is too much doom for most people to handle in their daily lives

so they simply tell each other it isn't true

truthiness

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 17, 2016 - 05:57am PT
Because it is no big deal and there isn't anything we can do about it anyway.

Sure Jody. Our 6,000 year old flat Earth has more urgent problems to deal with.

Curt
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 17, 2016 - 07:02am PT
The climate is the numero uno reason I voted for Trump.
History will record his presidency as the moment that the temperatures started to decline and the rising seas began to recede. All this as the arrogant criminal cabal behind this greatest of all scams were separated from their hog troughs and we'll deservedly joined the unemployment lines.
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 17, 2016 - 08:09am PT
I thought assuring your progeny generations of embarrassment was the reason you voted for Chump.
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
Nov 17, 2016 - 02:42pm PT
yeah, because 150 years or so of burning fossil fuels 24/7 in the dirtiest ways imaginable couldn't possibly have an effect on the climate. It's just too radical and liberal to even conceive of.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 06:00pm PT
I made posts and calculations before that showed the world was burning up 21,000 ships the size of the Exxon Valdez full of oil, a year, or 60 ships per day. This amount has actually increased. The Exxon V held 1.5 million barrels and was 1,000 feet long.

That's just oil adding CO2. THE USA uses about 25% of worlds supplies so the USA burns up about 15 Exxon Valdez ships of oil every day. That's quite a flow into the atmosphere and ocean.

That is just oil. Then there is coal and natural gas, and all of the methane leaks from oil wells and cows.

And, We have burned enough CO2 to have measurably decreased the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

What amazes me the most I think is the way they are able to keep all of the filling stations full around the clock.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 17, 2016 - 06:19pm PT
Learn

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 17, 2016 - 07:02pm PT
pud,
I really hope you are not uninformed enough to think anything in that video is accurate.
Do you think all these respected organizations are making up thousands of research fabrications?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)


American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)


The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)


SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

US DOD

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”


The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 17, 2016 - 07:18pm PT
Michael Mann is not the only source of graphs of recent large temperature increase.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/study-charts-2000-years-of-continental-climate-changes/?_r=0

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
(already out of date since it doesn't show the huge temperature increase of the last 9 years)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Debunking myths of deniers
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Stewart Johnson

Mountain climber
lake forest
Nov 17, 2016 - 07:26pm PT
Skinny pedal on the right.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 08:08pm PT
pud's video is definitely for dummies ;-)
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 08:14pm PT
Hey show some respect, that film is what Senator Inhofe uses in his climate hoax seminars. The best part is about 2 minutes in when the climate genius calls rainbow girl an ignorant slut. The Senator bleeps that part out! LOL


What's good about this film is the way the denier/hoaxer industry makes a sham out of the most basic facts. The movie puts out points that are very easy to fact check - hardly anything too technical. It could be a blueprint for how to learn about the subject by dissecting what is incorrect in it. I have no doubt there are many 4th grade classrooms that use it for just that. They censor the ignorant slut part though!

Based on the ppm of 365 mentioned in the movie, the movie was made around 1997-99?;


from https://www.co2.earth/
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 09:04pm PT
the video repeats a number incorrect assertions regarding the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but those have been extensively discussed in a former STForum thread which had been "locked," one of only two threads ever to have been...

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221

that thread went to 20,000 posts. There was never an explanation why the locking took place.

In the pud video there are two other errors which date it's creation:

1) the statement that "a judge will rule against the EPA's basis for regulating greenhouse gases" was premature, and the basis was upheld in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June 2012

2) that "galactic cosmic rays will be shown to cause clouds which can explain the warming"... this is a reference to the CLOUD experiment at CERN, the conclusion of that experiment:
"... using a pion beam from the CERN Proton Synchrotron, they found that ionising radiation such as the cosmic radiation that bombards the atmosphere from space has negligible influence on the formation rates of these particular aerosols."

http://press.cern/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change

this was in October of 2013.




the science explaining the surface temperature of the Earth has been known since 1896, and has long established the role of CO2 concentration as the determining factor.

Increasing the CO2 concentration increases the surface temperature.

In that 1896 paper a very credible estimate of the increase temperature due to coal burning was made, the incorrect part of the estimate was a greatly underestimated rate of coal burning.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 09:50pm PT
Further research shows 'Ignorant Slut' probably originating with Saturday Night Live from 1995-2000.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 17, 2016 - 10:34pm PT
Ed,
can you dispel the claim that 93% of Co2 emissions come from natural sources?

circa 1979
[Click to View YouTube Video]

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 17, 2016 - 10:43pm PT
No Ed. The thread went well past 30k posts if your self erasure and frequently banned individuals deletions are taken into account. It doesn't really matter though, since the consensus science will soon be strangled of its lifeblood funds and go poof into vapors flimsier than the supposed correlation between the minor rise of atmospheric CO2 content and the exceedingly modest rise of recent global temps. I pity the poor young fools that mistook this climate crockery for a science worthy of years of study and pursuit as a career.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 17, 2016 - 10:51pm PT
^Do you understand that you echo the whim that brought about the darkest ages Rick? Do you understand that science brought us to this standard of living? Do you understand that China and other countries will happily continue funding research and supplant our position if we decide the Dark Ages are better for fat old white men?




And I always thought that I was a Luddite


rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 17, 2016 - 11:16pm PT
Some fine day, Cowpoke, in a future more concerned with adaptation to reality rather than the bogeyman of false catastrophism, you'll understand the level of naivete of your once young mind. In the meantime please just try to keep your latest ex squeeze from going bat sh#t crazy on the pages of this ST asylum and endangering her kid(s) in the process.
kunlun_shan

Mountain climber
SF, CA
Nov 17, 2016 - 11:18pm PT
since the consensus science will soon be strangled of its lifeblood funds

Harper did this in Canada, which lasted as long as his regime/term.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 17, 2016 - 11:27pm PT
^yes! That government's destruction of public scientific records is right up there with the destruction of the Middle Eastern antiquities by ISIS/Taliban religious extremists.


FWIW I study oil and oil rock chemistry Rick. I am as stuck in the hydrocarbon economy as anyone. Would you agree that the oil economy is doomed in the next few generations?

This is not about catastrophism Rick. This is about anti-scientism. I know about the limitations of science - it is a false prophet like any other. But to persecute the practice that has undeniably improved the human condition (more than any other idolatry) is to put yourself in the camp of the anti-art, anti-science, anti-freedom religious extremists like the Taliban. Or at least the same semi-sphere. Nice, dude! Let us know when the Iron Maiden is all tuned up again.


Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 17, 2016 - 11:29pm PT
Rick is interesting only as a study in stubborn ignorance, but then again that is the title of this thread.
So tell us Rick, in the 3.5 years you have posted 1600 times about climate, have you learned anything about the subject besides the profoundness of your own denying voice? Is denialism justified when scientists aren't all as nice to you as your 2nd grade teacher? How should it be packaged to make a pleasing breitbart trumpet?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 12:05am PT
can you dispel the claim that 93% of Co2 emissions come from natural sources?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/


it looks like 96% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is from natural sources, at least from the NASA estimate. (The numbers are gigatons of carbon per year).

importantly, the Carbon cycle also absorbs CO2 out of the atmosphere.

When you add it all up, a net effect of increasing CO2 is due to humans, without the additional human contribution the system would be in equilibrium. Calculated this way, only about 3% of the total CO2 emission into the atmosphere stays there... but that has a large effect on the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

This imbalance is responsible for the increased concentration of CO2 from 280 ppm during the early 19th century (and before) to the modern level of 400 ppm.

This rise in CO2 concentrations has caused the increase in surface temperature, first by warming the atmosphere, which increases the water vapor content, which, in turn, raises the surface temperature more, positive feedback, the effect of increased CO2 concentrations is amplified by the water vapor increase.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 01:07am PT

This is interesting - what 400 parts per million actually looks like.
http://www.carbonvisuals.com/blog/400-ppm
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 18, 2016 - 06:49am PT
Rick is interesting only as a study in stubborn ignorance, but then again that is the title of this thread.
So tell us Rick, in the 3.5 years you have posted 1600 times about climate, have you learned anything about the subject besides the profoundness of your own denying voice? Is denialism justified when scientists aren't all as nice to you as your 2nd grade teacher? How should it be packaged to make a pleasing breitbart trumpet?

Climate science deniers aren't here to learn anything. Trying to convince diehard climate science deniers to change their mind, or to even consider other possibilities, is no different than arguing with them about religion. Their minds are made up, facts have absolutely no place and you're an elitist if you think that your science should carry more weight than their simple opinions.

Curt
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 18, 2016 - 06:55am PT
You're a smart guy Curt. What do you think needs to be done?

( besides arguing over the cause, which has been well established )
divad

Trad climber
wmass
Nov 18, 2016 - 07:44am PT
It isn't being caused by humans therfore humans can't affect it


There are 7.4 billion humans on the planet using fire and burning fossil fuels. What possible effect could that have?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 18, 2016 - 07:52am PT
You know better than claiming 93% of CO2 emissions are man made Ed. Perhaps a high percentage of the recent rise in atmospheric content, but a tiny percentage of the whole of emissions. Get more precise, my gosh your a scientist.
As far as the Cloud experiment not establishing causation between increased cloudiness and increased GCR, Jasper Kirkby (the head of the experiment) begs to differ. Even the opponents of causation admitted a marked increase in cloud nuclei.

It is well established that the alphabet soup of pro hysteria government agencies pushing the myth of unprecedented recent temp rise accomplished this propaganda tool via through the magic of cooling the past climatic data and cherry picking the current data points such as UHI, relying on ship intakes rather than buoys if the temp difference is beneficial to the cause, and finally the grandaddy of all trickery-infilling- most famously Cowan and Way.

One only has to take into account the modern increase in OLR as compared to the exceedingly modest GAT to realize there are moderating negative feedbacks preventing a runaway greenhouse scenario.

Give it up freaks, embrace reality and stumble your way into this new age.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 18, 2016 - 08:36am PT
You know better than claiming 93% of CO2 emissions are man made Ed.

Ed actually said:

1) it looks like 96% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is from natural sources.

and

2) When you add it all up, a net effect of increasing CO2 is due to humans, without the additional human contribution the system would be in equilibrium.

Is that really that hard to understand?

Curt
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 08:48am PT
The CLOUD experiment has made many very interesting findings, but the connection to the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) is not one of them, what they found regarding that topic was the effect is negligible.

Given Kirkby's original opinion that CLOUD would prove the connection between cloud cover and GCRs, the findings of the experiment have done just the opposite. While there is more to learn, it is doubtful that this is a major effect. The contribution to cloud formation physics is important, and especially in terms of aerosols and their role in drop nucleation.

The words I quoted above come from the CERN press release, which I linked. You can also look for news items in the scientific press:
e.g.
http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971


If you care to look around, you can find speculations from 2011 made by Kirkby that by now we'd be two years into a "Little Ice Age" induced by a Maunder Minimum... with plunging temperatures and all that... seems not to have happened.

Jasper should stick to the experimental findings of his experiment, which are providing good information for modeling cloud formation needed in the climate models.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 09:20am PT
BraveCowboy said: Do you understand that China and other countries will happily continue funding research and supplant our position

So when are China and India actually going to actively implement measures to combat global
warming? They merrily sign all manner of accords but then they more merrily continue
polluting like there's no tomorrow. Is there a catalytic converter in one car in China? Yes,
on imported ones. And the gasoline they produce there is refined only one step past diesel.
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Nov 18, 2016 - 09:49am PT
Reilly, I was responding to Rick's gleeful talk about defunding scientific research in the USA. Antiscientism is a serious problem: I myself have serious concerns about subjectivity in research. But to cease public funding of scientific research is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree that China and India are totally beating us in the race to the bottom re consumption, pollution, etc.
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 10:47am PT
Malemute, good try to put it into terms anyone can understand.


How about this. Think of it like compound interest, where the yearly interest gained is generally a small amount of your total investment value. But over those 20 or 30 years, boy does it add up.

Edit; to clarify this gross analogy, consider the total CO2 emitted each year like the total capitol investment at years end. The amount gained in interest each year would be like the amount of anthropogenic CO2 added to the CO2 cycle each year.
Fossil climber

Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
Nov 18, 2016 - 11:27am PT
Only a very few on this forum are qualified to make a reasonably informed judgement on the causes of global warming and the effects of anthropogenic CO2. You see a few competent scientists here, but a helluva lot of miscellaneous anecdotal material from either side which, like any such “evidence”, proves nothing and is the weapon of the emotional, who become more strident as they defend a position they can’t prove.

And some who can claim to be scientists may not have any training or expertise in this particular field, so a claim to be a scientist does not necessarily carry a great deal of weight.

There are indeed some in the scientific community who cast doubt on the causes of climate change, but the conclusions of 98% - plus or minus - of worldwide climate scientists must not be lightly dismissed.

I feel that a more accurate means of understanding the conflict is to “Follow the Money”. Who is likely to benefit from a particular position? And here we find that - in general, and not unanimously - Republicans strongly tend to be deniers, in line with the money-oriented attitude and policies of the party. And Democrats - the party of social equality - tend to recognize climate change as at least partially anthropogenic; that part, added to any normal cycle, pushing us inexorably toward increasingly dangerous climatic conditions and social unrest.

This statement will of course be strongly contested with anecdotal material, but in general will be found to be true.

In this, as in so many arguments, “Follow the Money”!
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 11:56am PT
Nevertheless, there are many facts that can help dispel myths about climate change. We often hear that volcanoes are causing most of the CO2. Well, it's a fact, that on a year to year basis, humans put out 130 times the amount volcanoes do. It's a fact.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 18, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
Nevertheless, there are many facts that can help dispel myths about climate change.

And then there's the over-the-top rhetoric, which hurts the cause.


Harold Wanless:
We should be planning for a minimum 6.6 foot sea level rise by 2100.
The reality will probably be 10 to 30 feet.


Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 18, 2016 - 01:08pm PT
3-4 feet of sea level rise will already be a catastrophe in many areas, so it's silly to complain that some predictions are even higher than the consensus. There is no one perfect prediction

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.92630b91ca9d

2100 is not a magic year, just a convenient time frame, but Sea level rise doesn't just stop at 2100. All those steep rise plot models go right on rising after 2100, even if GHG emissions decrease and levels in the atmosphere flatten, due to
 long heating rise time of oceans,
 long half life of GHGs in the air,
 long time to melt ice.

http://sciencenordic.com/time-running-out-adapt-dramatic-sea-level-rise

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/the-alarming-science-behind-projections-of-much-higher-seas-in-this-century/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0d98cfb411f1

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf

http://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projections/empirical-projections



McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 01:11pm PT
And then there's the over-the-top rhetoric, which hurts the cause.

Are you worried about the cause EdwardT? Wanless admits he is a bit of an outlier with his 10 to 30 foot prediction. He says that in a Vanity Fair article if you are interested.

Also, I was wondering if you accept the less radical 6 foot projections.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 18, 2016 - 02:42pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 03:09pm PT
It is well established that the alphabet soup of pro hysteria government agencies pushing the myth of unprecedented recent temp rise accomplished this propaganda tool via through the magic of cooling the past climatic data and cherry picking the current data points such as UHI, relying on ship intakes rather than buoys if the temp difference is beneficial to the cause, and finally the grandaddy of all trickery-infilling- most famously Cowan and Way.
Quite a thoughtful reply. I feel better already.

Did Jody give up trying to persuade us that the earth in flat?

To answer the OP's question, people are lazy, in denial or believe there's nothing they can do as individuals when all the world's governments seem content to stand by and hope for the best. When the sh#t hits the fan, I'm sure Rick and Jody will blame Obama.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 18, 2016 - 03:19pm PT

I'll tell you gents; I ain't too concerned with the climate since the 52f temps are perfect here and the cragging incredible.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 18, 2016 - 03:49pm PT
^^^
I like this response much better. Thanks Rick.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 18, 2016 - 04:53pm PT
So when are China and India actually going to actively implement measures to combat global
warming? They merrily sign all manner of accords but then they more merrily continue
polluting like there's no tomorrow. Is there a catalytic converter in one car in China? Yes,
on imported ones. And the gasoline they produce there is refined only one step past diesel.

China actually is doing a lot. Given the next POTUS, I actually think China is going to be more of leader than the US.

China's top echelon actually has a lot of engineers in it. (Engineering was seen as a key part of the "Great way Forward".) They are facing huge public pressure from bad air quality. No, it isn't a democracy but the elites are scared of public demonstrations getting out of hand. Plus, the elites are breathing/living in foul air in Beijing also. They are leading the world with solar plant installations and have big plans for nuclear power (will have to see how that one plays out). They are building a lot of coal plants but at the same time they are retiring older, dirtier, less efficient ones.

They have huge concerns over water scarcity and realize that climate change is going to make that much worse for them. Sea level rise is also a really big deal for some of their coastal, large population areas.

Which isn't to say that China has a Scandinavian attitude and infrastructure, they don't. For starters, they are far poorer per capital. And the rapid increase in car ownership is discouraging. But I am actually pretty hopeful about China as regards climate change.

India, not so much.

Even if legislation is passed (dubious), the central government is too weak to enforce anything.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 18, 2016 - 05:00pm PT
Anybody here in the insurance industry? Seems to me that the best of them should be like good Las Vegas odds-makers when it comes to climate change. Beautiful crag, by the way!
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:07am PT
Are you worried about the cause EdwardT?

Nah. The cause will live on. Maybe it'll gain some real traction, and the global community will make an effective plan to lower atmospheric CO2. More likely, it will muddle along, making good theater.

Also, I was wondering if you accept the less radical 6 foot projections.

Six feet is only less radical in comparison. It's still on the extreme end of most projections. I accept the IPCC and NCA estimates of 1 to 4 feet. Four feet is credible and still very problematic.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 01:46pm PT
OK - I see where you are coming from now. Thanks :>)

I have always wondered though, if the IPCC was too conservative in their approach. Putting things out 100 years allows people to think it's not important now, which fits right in to the OPs point. At the time this really really does start affecting more and more people, it really will be too late to do anything about.

Many think it's all ready too late, of course, because the future warming is already locked in. The warming will be relatively gradual until the ice is gone that cools the oceans. Much of this ice of course is ancient 'fossil' ice that is like the 'fossil' fuels that are melting it.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 02:20pm PT
Just wondering...who here of the "concerned" camp, eat meat?
I do...pretty much every other day!

Do you at least think about eating less meat while you are eating meat? You sound like Dingus that asks everyone what they drive- LOL

Let me say this; no matter what it is you are doing to f*#k the planet up, climate science is still climate science. If it were not for the science, we would not know anything about this stuff. It is a beginning.

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 02:41pm PT
You did notice that I addressed you as New World Odor. It is not the first time. ;>)

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 02:46pm PT
You mean about Trump? I'm thinking the Trump experiment is not going to turn out well.


McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 03:52pm PT
I don't actually worship Gore, mentioning his name was more of a trolling device. A gallon of gas still makes 22 lbs of CO2. Like I said before, regardless of what people do, whether it's Gore or whoever, climate science is still climate science. Isn't the article mostly saying trading in carbon credits can be folly? It has nothing to do with what is happening with the climate. Al Gore buys green energy for his home/homes.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 05:28pm PT
Well no, but the libertarian idea that seven billion people armed with modern technology can and should be able to do what they want is silly.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 05:51pm PT
oh boy...
we are in the Holocene interglacial.
it started 12,000 years ago.

70,000 years ago yosemite valley was full of ice. It is warmer now.

There is less ice in the northern hemisphere.
For the last three years in a row, the highest amount of ice ever measured is in the southern hemisphere. Last spring 70,000 penguins died because after wintering inland, they came to the bay to feed, but the bay they normally swim and eat in was iced over. they died.

there is more CO2 put into the air by the beef, cattle and milk industries than all petroleum combusted, so better go fear the cow pie! or get your conspiracy theory going against the Jersey cows!

or maybe some are just sick of the alarmists getting grants... or selling books.
Elrich made millions in the 70's we were all going to be dead by overpopulation,
statistical inevitability, stupid to deny... hmmmm sound familiar?

and there are a host of others, bird flu, heterosexual aids, blah, blah, blah.

The north american record high temp was set in 1913.

Richard Linzen alone? no.

here is Patrick Moore former head of GREENPEACE CANADA on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 06:13pm PT
Al Gore is apparently not concerned after pocketing 250 million....
everywhere he goes, he goes in a private jet, putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in a day than you will in 4 years.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 06:19pm PT
about Patrick Moore from Ed's post:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/

OH no, LOL, Patrick Moore is the guy that claimed you could drink Glyophosate:

http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-moore
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Nov 19, 2016 - 06:25pm PT
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/18/climate-emergency-north-pole-sees-record-temps-melting-ice-despite-arctic-winter
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 06:37pm PT
EdBannister wrote: Richard Linzen alone?

perhaps you could provide some reference to Linzen's scientific work on which you feel he is not alone.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 19, 2016 - 06:54pm PT
10B4me...thanks for the read...scary sh#t..
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:15pm PT
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes


Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[75][76]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[77][78][79]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[80][81][82]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[83][84]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[85][86]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[87][88]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[89][90]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[91][92]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[93][94]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[95][96]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[97][98]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[99][100]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[101][102]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[103][104]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[105][106]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[107][108]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[109][110]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[111][112]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[113][114][115]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[116][117]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[118][119]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[120][121][122][123]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[124][125]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[126][127]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[128][129]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[130][131]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[132][133]
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:17pm PT
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:18pm PT
Man, don't you get it? Al Gore has $$$, so melting sea ice has no relation to a warming climate. Those liberal environmental extremists' message has become so pervasive, even the ice believes it now. All is fine. Carry on, or the government will control your life!
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:18pm PT
or you can just remember none of them are from Stanford, they just got a grant for 225 million... do you think they will oppose what they are in the tank for 225 million for?
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:20pm PT
or, we are in the holocene interglacial, it started getting warmer 11,500 years ago.....
did Henry Ford do that??
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:23pm PT
semite Valley was full of ice 70,000 years ago... it got warmer, four recessional moraines witness four periods of stability followed by a yet warmer period... also not caused by Ford or Eli Whitney.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:40pm PT
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:41pm PT
Dynamic equilibrium for the last 450,000 years which we are now well within the normal limits of.

Are you really going to maintain that Exxon caused these?
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:43pm PT
Ed, thanks for the substantive contributions. With the first list, it is hard to compare its merit without a list of scientists who have, after evaluating the data, reach a contrary conclusions. With the second list, two points. First not everyone on the list I would characterize (based on their titles) as necessarily qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter. Second, as you point out, they are not denying climate change but, rather, question the ability to quantify the data.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:57pm PT
Fat,
no honest person pretends to know what quantity of influence man has on climate change.. there is no means of measuring it. there is no control! there can be no scientific experiment.

but to maintain that the earth as we know it is threatened, when we are well within the pattern of the past, is grant searching alarmism.

When i was in high school we were all going to die from overpopulation.. a statistical inevitability.
Erlich made a lot of money.

we were all going to die from heterosexual aids, and the Bird Flu also others..
research grant impending doom. all of them.

there are more lists, wikipedia has a page i copied 2 of many lists from.

and there is this, inconvenient truth...

140,000 penguins died last spring in Antarctica because not just an iceberg, anentire bay remained frozen that normally thaws and penguins feed.. for the last three years in a row, southern polar ice has been at the highest level ever measured.

facts.

and when facts don't match the science, the facts are not wrong, the "science" is..


EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:05pm PT
We are in the Holocene 11,500 years worth... and it has been getting warmer the whole time, somehow this is news??

the only news might be it could be stabilizing now.. after all the north american high temperature record was set in 1913. : ) true, despite all efforts to amend that inconvenient truth.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:06pm PT
Ed B, no list of dissenting scientists ( some of which number greater than 30,000), no amount of peer reviewed papers, and no quantity of unimpeachable evidence will ever sway these freaks from party line adherence to the gospel of their religion.You might as well be arguing with robots.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:25pm PT
Rick, you're describing yourself (and BS about 30,00 dissenting scientists on this issue).

Ed, I understand your point but I think you're pointing to false analogies. You're talking temperature but neglect to mention carbon.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:31pm PT
actually, I asked for references to scientific work, not testimony.

how much do you think Erlich made on his book?


do you know any of the scientists on that list?
have you ever read any of their papers?
went to any of their seminars,
talked to them in any way?

you don't know who they are, and you don't know how the list was made, or by whom.

you actually can talk to the scientists that post to STForum who can explain with some patience what is in the papers, yet you find them less convincing than the suggestion of someone you don't know who put up a list of 25 scientists who you've never read any technical work from...

...perhaps I should not find this strange, but I do...

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:48pm PT
nwo2, I don't see how that has anything to do with the science of climate.

How we choose to respond to the results of that science is something quite different.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 19, 2016 - 11:38pm PT
^^^^^^
You love a tender T-bone steak as much as any of us, don't you?

LOL. You should go to work for Trump Steaks. Stop it. You are making me drool.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 20, 2016 - 12:53am PT
My query has nothing to do with the "science of climate".

I don't know what the policy outcome will be, but I do know the science will not change whatever that outcome is.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Nov 20, 2016 - 03:42am PT
No meat would be a good start.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 20, 2016 - 04:29am PT
Thanks Ed.

Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 20, 2016 - 07:18am PT
"No meat would be a good start."

How about not.

How about all the vegans who tell the rest of us not to eat meat just jump in volcanoes. The net result would probably be about equal.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 20, 2016 - 08:07am PT
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

EdBannister, thanks for listing the couple of dozen scientists you found that "question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections."

Would you now like to see a list of the thousands of scientists who have proofs on what your handful of scientists question?

Not that it's wrong to question, in fact that's what science is all about--questioning. But, when a small handful is so powerfully outnumbered, who do you believe?
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 20, 2016 - 08:58am PT
K-man,

just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it true.

Care for a few examples?

I don't know what the policy outcome will be, but I do know the science will not change whatever that outcome is.

The earth evolves. It changes. Science follows.
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Nov 20, 2016 - 09:02am PT
Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Because people are mostly preoccupied with sex.



Dave, why don't you grow up and learn that others can have opinions different from yours. Better yet, throw yourself into a volcano. Too many people on this planet anyway. Because as a solution, the vegan option would have a solid positive impact. And I don't think that methane and the other hydrocarbons are addressed by a carbon tax scenario (although I could be wrong on that), despite the fact that CH4 has 21 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Nov 20, 2016 - 09:07am PT
no honest person pretends to know what quantity of influence man has on climate change

No, the honest persons pretend to know that no honest person knows what quantity of influence man has on climate change.

My evolved survival/confirmation bias processes know better than your science.

Hope that's on topic for this thread :-)
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 20, 2016 - 10:34am PT
EdBannister and pud and others make the argument that the Earth's climate has changed, historically, and that the current change can be attributed to natural causes.

There is an interesting number of threads to pull regarding this point, I don't think it is too difficult to follow the reasoning.

In fact, it was the departure of the climate's behavior from "natural" and the search for natural causes which ended up concluding that the climate was responding to human activity. The very same logic, that climate change is natural, lead climate researchers to study the early climate.

It is a fact that those very same plots of the history of climate came out of this research effort, an improving understanding of the paleoclimate, using a number of interesting observations that serve as "proxies" for the actual quantities to be measured, for instance, the surface temperature, the CO2 concentrations, and other quantities known to mediate the climate.

These proxies built a picture of the "recent" climate, during this interglacial, that provides a detailed set of observations against which to compare the observed climate of the 20th century.

Squaring this historic data with the current data is not possible given our understanding of how the Earth's surface temperature is established, the explanation for which was given by Arrhenius in 1896, which addressed the difference in the Earth's temperature in glacial and interglacial periods. The quantitative explanation involving the role of CO2 and the "greenhouse" mechanism is well established and the methods used applied to planetary atmospheres as a first approximation to their behavior.

In that paper the prediction of a warming climate due to the emission of CO2 from human activity was made, and the rate of warming calculated based on the climate sensitivity to CO2, and the rate of coal burning. The sensitivity calculated was not that far off, the rate of CO2 intensive energy production was grossly underestimated.

The relatively simple model Arrhenius used was due to the lack of global data of the climate, and the necessary simplification of the calculations that could be performed. Both the data and the computational ability increased dramatically.

The models, which contain our best understanding of all the factors involved in climate, can be used both the predict future climate, and to explain the recent past climate. As data on the climate became more accurate, the models became more constrained.

In the end, the models could not explain the 20th century climate without accounting for the human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural variability of climate does not account for this recent behavior.

All along this research path the basic assumptions of the models, of the data, of the climate reconstructions have been challenged, the best challenges by the scientists conducting the research themselves, but also from other scientists, and other people outside the scientific "establishment." While there are open questions, the degree to which these open questions can effect the current understanding are getting smaller and smaller.

For instance, understanding clouds has long been a difficult issue and a major uncertainty in the models. It was a natural place to study, and many criticisms of the importance of CO2 pointed to the important role that clouds could play in relatively short term climate. The proposal that galactic cosmic rays might be changing the solar system "environment" and be a part of the non-terresital climate forcing was at least part of the basis of the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

Conducting this research several interesting observations were made. First and foremost, the primary mechanism for the cosmic-ray--cloud-formation mechanism was shown to be so small that it is ruled out as an explanation for the 20th century climate "anomaly." It did discover the importance of different types of aerosols in cloud formation, and that the sulphur aerosols, once thought to be a primary agent, is only a part of the story. This is important in understanding the paleoclimate record.

Finally, studies of the correlations of the cosmic ray flux with climate see modulations which help to explain the remaining variability of climate, not nearly large enough to explain the 20th century, but important in explaining some of the "bumps and wiggles" that occur when comparing the models to the data. Reducing the unaccounted variability increase the predictive power of the models.

I mention this last case as an example of the "self examination" that occurs in doing science and following up on the "loose ends" of the model. There is a huge incentive within the science community to pursue these loose ends as they are the places where important discoveries are made, and the making of important discoveries is rewarded in science.

Among the listed scientists there are a fraction who have provided scientific criticism, all of which had been addressed through observation, measurement and modeling. The understanding of clouds being one such criticism. To a varying degree, these criticisms existed previous to the voice those particular listed scientists gave them, and those criticism were addressed in the research efforts of climate science.

Being able to read both the criticisms, and the responses, in the scientific literature is an important part of understanding the arguments and there importance to the scientific discussion. Unfortunately not everyone can read that literature, some of it is located behind a "paywall" and most of it written for a professional audience possessing the tools to understand it.

For the most part, the interested public listens to interpretations of the work and depends on the interpreters for their understanding. Being able to ask questions about the interpretations is important, being able to understand the scientific work would be so much better.


Bottom line, it is the departure of the 20th century climate from what is "natural" that was the interesting question that had been ultimately answered by considering the human activity which has increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration. When this activity is taken into account, we can explain the 20th century climate.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
Ed H. thanks for your thoughtful reply, of course i respect your opinion.. we differ, but i still respect your reasoned opinion.

I look at nature as cyclical and variable, even the polarity of the planet has regularly reversed and i view where we are as within the normal range and rate of change.

as for Malemute,
if you consider money to be the motivation, then please look at examples like Stanford receiving 225,000,000 dollars.

re: your implication as to my stupidity, particularly in high school science:
Limiting my response to High School only.
In 11th grade all 1,342 students in my class took the same standardized Biology test, you think maybe i am saying top 5 or 10 %? no, i had the highest score by a 3% margin.
In 12th grade i passed the AP exam for biology, accomplished by only three that year in a geographic area covering 28 High schools from LaCrescenta to Monrovia, CA
I graduated from Pasadena High School with departmental honors in guess what? Science.
so if we are to label that stupidity, what are we to call your performance?
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:06pm PT
so you just abandoned your own criteria...

you changed standards after you realized reality was contrary to your opinion...


well at least that is consistent
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:06pm PT

EVERY GEOLOGIC RECORD shows us within normal and recurring limits
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:18pm PT
and Ed. you are right on the variables, many of which we do not understand...
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:20pm PT
mute, who produced your graph...
who are they funded by?

i cited source, you did not.

and since you cited high school science as a criterion for measuring intelligence, was your record better than mine?
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:22pm PT
The NY Times just had an article today citing how climate change deniers lately have taken to listing every last climate change denier in the universe of climate scientists to promote their cause. EdBannister seems to fit this run-of-the-mill climate change-denier type.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:29pm PT
Malamute,
i will stop responding
you insult me personally based on assumption about high school science performance,
when you are shown to be incorrect, you do not apologize, or even acknowledge your error, or rude behavior. instead you change criteria...

that is not consistent, to use the kindest accurate terms possible.

so, i cease talk ing to a person who is not consistent.

for the rest, look at geologic time, not the last 7 minutes on the planet.. the office of 30 day forecast at NOAH, is 60% inaccurate. but they will tell you the models, and assumptions are all valid and tested.. they are funded.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:38pm PT
You don't agree with me so you are stupid!


It is useless to have a reasonable debate with folks that think like this.

carry on
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:39pm PT
you are correct PUD

note i used no such term, or i hope did not show that attitude.

as for steak, i am occasionally in, i know my place as omnivore in the food web.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 20, 2016 - 01:58pm PT
and Ed. you are right on the variables, many of which we do not understand...

this is true, but we know how much those variables affect the predictions, and the answer is not so much... when you account for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the largest factor causing the climate change...
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 20, 2016 - 02:18pm PT
If for no other reason other than something on the order of 95% of climate scientists believe that humans are significant contributors to climate change, I would believe that humans are significant contributors to climate change. End of story unless I have some extraordinary insight that I know most humans don't have. If you think otherwise, you are of the conspiracy theory ilk, IMO.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 20, 2016 - 02:31pm PT
"Dave, why don't you grow up and learn that others can have opinions different from yours. Better yet, throw yourself into a volcano. Too many people on this planet anyway. Because as a solution, the vegan option would have a solid positive impact. And I don't think that methane and the other hydrocarbons are addressed by a carbon tax scenario (although I could be wrong on that), despite the fact that CH4 has 21 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2."

The point is that one group doesn't get to dictate what another group eats / drinks / puts in their bodies.

Banning drugs has worked out fabulously, hasn't it? So, lets ban steak / meat?

That is a stellar idea.


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 20, 2016 - 02:47pm PT
here it is on the NASA website:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 20, 2016 - 03:54pm PT
When I took the climatology course at the U of Chicago in 1959 it was considered the easiest class in the meteorology curriculum. Looks like it has become more sophisticated over the years.

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:02am PT
Great link, Malemute!
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:18am PT
just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it true.

Pud, it's not a majority "belief."

With science, there are ways to "prove" things. Certainly, no proof with climate can be 100% accurate, but things can get very close. So, it's not just a casual belief based on an opinion, as you seem to imply.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:31am PT
NWO2, you keep posting this, as if you know this outcome to be true if we restrict our carbon output.

I'd just like to know how you folks would feel about living a life of.....
No meat consumption. No private car ownership. Calorie ration cards. No private land ownership.
Restrictions on freedom to travel.

OK, let's suppose this is the end result of reducing our carbon footprint to one that allows for a livable planet. Can you enumerate the alternative where we don't limit our carbon footprint? Come on, just do it once.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:35am PT
EVERY GEOLOGIC RECORD shows us within normal and recurring limits
    EdBannister

Really EdBannister? How is it then that both EdH and Malemute show different records from different verified sources?

That your graph was so quickly debunked doesn't make you look like the smartest kid on the block, as you claim to be.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 21, 2016 - 10:01am PT
Ed H posts the standard alarmist fare, a graph designed to sensationalize the alarmist argument. Widen the graph out a bit into geologic time Ed and your little 400 ppm spike isn't even an ant hill compared to long periods measured in the multiple thousands of ppm's. Some of these geologic co2 highpoint s coincided with extreme ice ages.
Let's look at our nearest planetary neighbors: Venus at 96% CO2, Mars at 96% CO2. Compare this to earth at.04% CO2. What is the unifying theory that works near perfectly to explain their respective climatic conditions? What theory initiated by Maxwell and elaborated by Feynman et al explains planetary climatic conditions infinitely better than the pathetic CO2 control knob pushed by the commie/facsist/eco freaks?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 21, 2016 - 10:15am PT
commie/facsist/eco freaks?

you forgot black, educated, gay, liberal, tree-hugging, native american jewish muslim hippies Rick, No free college for you.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 10:56am PT

I don't know what the policy outcome will be, but I do know the science will not change whatever that outcome is.

To me, this is the critical truth. Chemistry and physics don't change whether we impose draconian restrictions on freedom or ignore human influence on climate. What we do, however, affects our environment, including our climate, because of that chemistry and physics. (Sorry, biologists. I'm treating biological effects as reduced to chemical and physical reactions.)

From my market-oriented perspective, I see no viable argument for ignoring the science. Yes, we lack 100% agreement. We also lack 100% certainty. So what? Failure to take what we know into account because we aren't certain is a little like deciding I don't need to wear my seat belts because I don't know if I'll be in an collision.

Concern for being in a collision doesn't mean I decide to drive only if I'm as heavily armored as an M1 A1 Abrams Tank, but it does mean I take relatively cheap precautions like using my seat belts. We can - and need to - make similarly informed decisions about how our activities affect climate, and what changes are worth making.

John
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 21, 2016 - 12:07pm PT
Malemute - It's comical how you've got such a chubby for those deplorable "deniers".

Do you think you're making any converts with your condescending posts?







c wilmot

climber
Nov 21, 2016 - 12:41pm PT
Why is no one concerned about overpopulation?
Fossil climber

Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
Nov 21, 2016 - 01:08pm PT
John, above - right on. And so is Wilmot - overpopulation is the driver.

Alternatives. If we do nothing we're going to have some pretty bad consequences anyway just from the inexorable increase in temperatures.

If the vast majority of climate scientists are right - but we do nothing about GHGs etc. - the consequences will be horrendous. Can we afford to take the chance? Your kids and mine are the ones who will pay, big time.

And - we don't gain a lot in this discussion from insults. Insults usually are a last mindless defence when losing, even though they can be fun, to a point. If insults seem to be desirable, how about getting original?

(Just an amusing sort of OT anecdote - I was once at a cocktail party which included George Hartzog who was NPS Director, and Ansel Adams. Both incredible raconteurs. After a few postprandial libations they got into a contest to see who could outdo each other with Shakespearian-style insults and toasts. It went on for half an hour and was so amazing that 40+ years later I think it was one of the greatest verbal jousts I have ever heard. There were no losers.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 02:11pm PT
We haven't gained anything from a rational presentation of the science.

I respectfully disagree. Chiloe turned me on to the statistical literature that dealt with my own doubts about climate science, and completely changed my thinking. A string of gratuitous insults would have caused me to ignore everything else he, or probably anyone else with his views, said.

In my experience as an advocate, insults and ridicule cause intelligent fact-finders to conclude that the person making the insults lacks a solid argument. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people still making up their minds on this issue, and what we do about it depends on what they think.

John
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:03pm PT
You sure seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, DMT. Do you work for a living?
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:17pm PT
Insults and half-truths have so soiled (and I mean that in a stinky sh#t sort of way) this particular discussion that no critical thinker would take anything Malemut, Chaz, Curt, McHales Navy, Eyeeonkee, Mousedrool, etc., etc, ad nausea serious. Your all just humping each other's leg. Attack, attack, attack, call dummies, fools, stupid, batshit crazy, on and on.

Why? Why not just say some of the initial considerations were wrong, did not come true, and going forward probably won’t come true, and we have some explaining to do with regards of other ‘not happening’ climate changes that were forecast.

Only Ed Hartouni comes off sounding reasonable and educated, and he is a little hesitant to be dogmatic. Of course, he is wasting the taxpayer’s dime being on the supertopo website rather than minding business at Lawrence Livermore Labs.

I am not at all religious, didn’t vote for Trump, don’t work for Evil Koch Brothers or big oil, and I get more skeptical every day. But, I am educated, can read and discern propaganda. Can weigh all of the facts from multiple sources and can – in a scientific manner – reach my own conclusion. But you fools can’t seem to do anything but cut and paste and called others stupid.

O.K., yeah, we have climate change! And, it seems to be warming? And, a percent of that is caused by humans. And, maybe some of it is caused by us filthy idle Americans. So we (the only ones that can really solve the problem) should shut down our economy and go back into the dark ages?

Like Dingus says – you’re not advancing your ideology in a very convincing way. So, many just give it up discussing here with boisterous people so full of themselves.

Look, the data may have been flawed, all the way back, and the data may have had a pressured agenda for an outcome – that is proven over and over.

Those peer reviewed people that made a living at this scare were more interested in continued funding than absolute truths. You claim some deniers are pitching false data – but what about your zealots and your prophets of doom. You don’t think they have an agenda or skin in the game to pitch what is slowing turning out to be your bullsh#t.

For every Koch, you’ve got a Soros. For every reference to the 97%, there are dozens of papers on why that is and was a tilted study.

Who are the climatology religious nuts here? It’s not me. I’m just interested in current perspectives from reputable sides – and most of you nuts have eliminated yourselves from the reputable side.

I was in Denver and heard Chiloe’s presentation a few years back. He got some questions that so flustered him that he could not respond and nearly fainted. Like nobody else in the meeting had done any reading on contrary points of view – like he was preaching to a willing group of snake handlers and everyone would just nod their heads up and down. Hardly convincing of anything.

So stop eating meat, ride a bike, protest in the streets! While the rest of the world ignores all of our little proposals and climate treaties and goes on their merry way.

The only way out of this is a free market approach, and a huge financial enterprising incentive for some smart Americans (not Canadian’s – you can’t seem to get over yourselves pointing figures) to solve the problem – which they will do eventually.

You guys seem more interested in the prospect and joy of frying under a scorching sun – just so you can say to me and others: “See, I told you so”. Now that is stupid!
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:22pm PT
Can I just say, that I think you are an idiot, BobSFranksNose?
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:28pm PT
Anything specific Donkey Greg, or just more banter and name calling. I'm almost convinced your right.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:39pm PT
The only way out of this is a free market approach, and a huge financial enterprising incentive for some smart Americans (not Canadian’s – you can’t seem to get over yourselves pointing figures) to solve the problem – which they will do eventually.

I wish that were true, but in this case, we don't have a proper allocation of property rights, so the market won't provide an efficient solution. If I can emit as much carbon as I want without paying a price (either in the form of making a payment to emit, or foregoing a payment to refrain from emitting), the market will send the wrong price signal for the entrepreneurial problem-solvers to sell their products.

If we can come up with a system of property rights, such that the polluter pays the marginal cost of the pollution, then, but only then, is the market the only efficient way out. That's what the debate is really about, but too many on both sides of the argument try to short cut the analysis either by denying that humanity has more than a negligible effect on earth's climate, or asserting that we must "do everything" to minimize our carbon footprint.

Trade-offs get messy to argue because different people value different things, but we will ultimately select some point in the trade-off, whether we try to analyze it carefully or just default into our terms of trade.

John
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:46pm PT
Good analogy JE.
Here is my own,give me one problem in this world where the "free market" has come to the rescue and solved it.

Just one.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:49pm PT
Why is no one concerned about overpopulation?

You're probably right, but what can be done in a democracy?
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 21, 2016 - 03:59pm PT
Wow, finally a thoughtful post by John. Saying both sides have to come together and both sides need to work a solution. I'm fine with that. I like it. I would do it, and I am a private property owner.

And then you have Malemute and donkeykong greg that immediately post more name calling and blaming the Koch Brothers. Seriously Malemut, what is your fascination (infatuation) with the Koch Brothers. Do you really think your gaining traction with this line of dribble. And, can I come together with the likes of these guys? Or, would I have to be submissive to their demands and protocols, like a repentant slave to their master. Don't think so. After all, I'm just stupid.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 21, 2016 - 04:02pm PT
Just one.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 21, 2016 - 04:52pm PT
That is all you have,parody,comedy.

No wonder you are sensitive to Malmutes or any others mocking.

Yep,critical thinkers.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 21, 2016 - 05:21pm PT
After all, I'm just stupid.

At least we finally have consensus.

Curt
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 21, 2016 - 05:26pm PT
I respectfully disagree. Chiloe turned me on to the statistical literature that dealt with my own doubts about climate science, and completely changed my thinking.

John, I have to admit, you are one in thousands who have done the research and had the ability to alter your opinion on the subject.

Folks like EdBannister are so frickin' full of their egos that they cannot dislodge their "beliefs" to look at the facts, and instead eat up the disinformation that is so prevalent in the US MSM.

I honestly don't know how those folks who lie about this subject sleep at night.



Bob writes:

And then you have Malemute and donkeykong greg that immediately post more name calling and blaming the Koch Brothers.

Bob, I respectfully ask you where you get your opinions on climate change. Do you believe what climate scientists write or are you of the opinion that the jury is still out?

If the latter, who do you think is responsible for casting doubt about climate science into your midst?
Fossil climber

Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
Nov 21, 2016 - 05:47pm PT
A free market solution? Follow the money.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 21, 2016 - 05:55pm PT

Wow, finally a thoughtful post by John. Saying both sides have to come together and both sides need to work a solution. I'm fine with that. I like it. I would do it, and I am a private property owner.

And then you have Malemute and donkeykong greg that immediately post more name calling and blaming the Koch Brothers. Seriously Malemut, what is your fascination (infatuation) with the Koch Brothers. Do you really think your gaining traction with this line of dribble. And, can I come together with the likes of these guys? Or, would I have to be submissive to their demands and protocols, like a repentant slave to their master. Don't think so. After all, I'm just stupid.


So if you were a smoker and your kids (or grandkids) were screaming at you to stop, would their hysteria be reason enough to say screw you attitude I'm going to smoke myself to death?

And what if you rationally knew that you should quite, but emotionally you didn't want to. And your locker room buddies could point to fake medical journals (that were indirectly funded by tobacco companies, but people denied that too) that cast doubt on the connection, and somebody else was arguing that non-smokers get cancer too and somebody else had pretty graphs that had something to do with white blood counts and then you come across adds run by the Koch brothers that look like:

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 06:53pm PT
Of course, he is wasting the taxpayer’s dime being on the supertopo website rather than minding business at Lawrence Livermore Labs.

so you know my work schedule?
please take a look at the time of the posts and point out those you think were done "on the taxpayer's dime"

we can go from there... (but just so you know, I'm working at LLNL 70% time for the last year and a half)....
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:03pm PT
The other 30% he's in a Jerry Garcia tribute band...
sandstone conglomerate

climber
sharon conglomerate central
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:06pm PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/energy-environment/a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners.html

It's over, Johnny. It's over
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:12pm PT
Not. to worry,the free market will take care of everything.













Lol.
BobSFrankNose

Social climber
Seattle
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:40pm PT
Ok, I’ll play the game a little longer. And, I will (at K-man’s request) come clean on my opinions. And no offense to Ed H - LLNL- his is one of the good guys, just yanking his chain.

I used to believe all of it and was quite concerned – as were my fellow associates that I worked with (all over 50 at the time – now well into our 60’s, Not all of us were white!). But, we also read contrary points of view (because we wanted to hear both sides of such a possible catastrophic scenario). Initially most of the predictions seemed to line up and be plausible. But, it started to change with other new and updated opinions. We were not climatologist, but we could come up to speed pretty fast on any topic out there and defend it or prosecute it. We could become reasonable experts fast, at least with deception’s.

Then, money and regulations made its way into the politics of global warming and climate change. It was clearly being driving by other forces. It damaged progressive nations and gave the real polluters a pass. I read and listened to people like Richard Lindzen on the corruption of the data. He is just another opinion – not taking him any more serious than the rest. And don’t call him names and trash him with cut and paste sh#t. I’ve read the entire pros and cons of him over the last ten years.

Then I re-saw Inconvenient Truth and saw a completely disturbing side to it, I ask some questions and the name calling begin. Almost a religious fervor from the defenders of climate change – they immediately got hostile and aggressive. Then I read hundreds of the exposed emails from Climate Gate that clearly showed how data was skewed (manipulated might be a better term) for expectant and certain outcomes from the paying people. I investigated the drivers like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and closely read what they said and did and excused themselves, etc. They had a very hard time defending their deeds. But, that’s just another piece of the puzzled to consider.

I saw Gore buy a 9 million dollar mansion in Santa Barbara (Montecito precisely at sea level). Apparently thinking that only the Atlantic Ocean would rise according to his own outlandish predictions – but not the Pacific Ocean? Hypocrisy at every single stop in my reading, and the money factor became more and more of the driver – with global societal control and social justice. Mostly directed at the U.S. Face it; Germany has little skin in the game comparatively. Sweden pfffft. And China – the biggest polluter has NO skin in the game or intentions of living up to anything we demand or put forth as UN law.

I saw individuals and companies lining up for the CCX, cap and trade participation, Gores Company GMI and Goldman Sachs 10% involvement. Further alarm bells went off – as it should. With trillions on the line for the taking - could something else be up? Any question at this point really produced hatred to the inquirer and mostly name calling. I further reconsidered my research.

This thread is a perfect example of a microcosm of my thought development. I asked serious questions on my first post and immediately get berated with my Nov 4, 2:57 post. I pushed back just a little and got further downgraded as a simpleton. No real answers to my real questions – just sh#t flung my way.

Apparently your spokesperson is Malemut and he seems to be the go to guy for the facts and the goodies. But seriously, with a post like this, who wouldn’t laugh out load. And, he gets worse and worse.

Nov 4, 2016 - 09:53am PT Malemut says:
Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

(1) the Koch brothers fund a massive disinformation campaign
(2) bitter old white men don't give a damn about the future
(3) people are afraid of change
(4) a large percent of americans are science & math morons
(5) the Dunning Kruger effect
(6) most humans are irrational
(7) stupid people hate smart people
(8) deeply religious people are ipso facto delusional
(9) many people don't distinguish between fact and bullsh#t
(10) your government is corrupt and incompetent


So, I’ve brought up some serious questions about causes and effects and what we can really do about it now, and just hate, spite and name calling tossed my way. Too old for it to matter or effect me.

I’m not saying it isn’t real, not saying it isn’t man-made – just saying that it could have been overblown, exaggerated, overstated for a purpose, and hyperbolic for a conclusion. And, that there is evidence of manipulation with the data for just the right government approved outcome.

So, why wouldn’t anyone question such a huge life ending, world ending scenario without investigating all sides and being a little skeptical.

Really bored now with this!

AND, I am a long time climber, who has climbed with a lot of great people on a lot of really great routes - everywhere in the world. But, fire away with your insults.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:56pm PT
rick sumner writes:
What theory initiated by Maxwell and elaborated by Feynman et al
whatever that means... perhaps he can elaborate.

The report in Science "Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures" written by Sagan and Mullen has a nice comparison of the Venus, Earth, Mars atmospheres and surface temps...
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/CPS/sites/CPS/files/sagan_and_mullen_1972.pdf

this paper has 673 citation in Google Scholar, 31 in 2016 which is quite good for such an old paper.

The general model used by Sagan and Mullen works just fine, and requires the CO2 (and other GHG) components.

Note also that Lindzen completely agrees with this, his hypothesis has to do with cloud cover to make the surface temperatures higher during the time in Earth's history when the Sun was weaker (the reason I looked at this paper was that it was referenced in Lindzen's paper). Lindzen disagrees with the idea of extreme temperature change due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations because some other mechanism will take over to equilibrate the Earth's surface temperature, compensating for the increased CO2.

A recent pre-print describing this, and one that uses all of the modern tools of climate science can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3209.pdf
is instructive that it discusses Lindzen's hypothesis (and finds it no very likely, based on scientific reasoning).


Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations increases surface temperature.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:24pm PT
^^^^Wrong Dr. atmospheric density has much more to do with planetary temps than ghg's . You are aware of Feynman and his work with others on the U.S. standard atmosphere model 1976. You are aware of the gravito thermal effect independent of ghg forcing. Sagan smagan.
EdBannister

Mountain climber
13,000 feet
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:35pm PT
the most often quoted stat is the 97 or 98% of atmospheric scientists agree about manmade global warming... but any one who agrees that man is a factor, is counted as if they assign human activity as primary... that stat is not accurate.. and much more interesting, would be a stat of all those who do not have a financial interest in manmade global warming.. i.e. no institutional, departmental or personal grant... funny how most dissenters are safely retired where they can express their real opinions, kind of like conservatives in hollywood. Retire, then tell.

as for bitter.. do you remember all the riots after Obama was elected? I don't.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
you've got to be kidding, rick,

you have never read the Feynman Lectures in Physics, and you certainly don't understand what was on whatever blog told you that that was the explanation for the surface temperature...

time for you to go out and get into the breeze, then think of how that breeze comes to be.

The Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium (there is a rather strong external energy source that needs to be taken into account).

Gravity is very much a part of the climate models...


and the CO2 is mixed, uniformly in altitude to about 100 km...
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:33pm PT
Assuming the validity of the current science. What is a wise course of action?

1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?

2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.


Does the commitment and financial resources allow for both plans of action?

If yes, fine. If no, what then?

FWIW
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:50pm PT
As far as the blogs go, you should get out of your bubble wrap sometime and read some of the papers republished there. And don't forget the comment section.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 21, 2016 - 11:19pm PT
you should understand what Feynman wrote and what it's applicability is...
as for reading those blogs, it was enough of my time wasted.

The "published papers" seemed to have been withdrawn by the publisher.... and they appear only to exist in the fantasy land of those blogs, which seems to make up all of your reading.

If you possessed the ability, sitting down with the Feynman Lectures in Physics and work through them would be a good start rather than parroting what's written on blogs. My first time through Feynman was 1971 and they are still rather good, I read in them from time to time.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 21, 2016 - 11:28pm PT
What, Ed , explains the fact that the atmospheric temps of Venus at altitudes corresponding to earth atmosphere surface pressure are the same.

Don't answer. I can't stand the contortions.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 22, 2016 - 12:04am PT
rick, the "hydrostatics" of the atmospheres are governed by the same set of equations, in the approximation that they are hydrostatic, you get your answer, as Feynman, and others, have calculated, no mystery there...

that does not, however, explain the atmosphere's temperature, nor does it explain the surface temperature.

no contortions there...
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:58am PT
Assuming the validity of the current science. What is a wise course of action?

1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?

2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.

I think we need to do both. In terms of "pleading," I believe other more forward thinking nations have been pleading with us to get serious about climate change for some time. The good news (I think) is that something like 193 countries have signed the Paris Agreement.

Curt
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:31am PT
The effort to combat global warming is just hot air. It's a big money grab.

We're not gonna do jack sh#t.

Curt referenced the Paris Agreement, signed by 193 countries. It's a worthless document. Little more than a vehicle for signatories to say "We care!' It has no detailed timetable or country-specific goals. Worthless.

I'm not saying the consensus is wrong,... just that we (mankind) are not going to effectively address this issue anytime soon.

Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. They announce their commitment to peaking emissions by 2030. By then CO2 should be over 600ppm. Maybe over 700ppm. Way to step up, China.

But we can still enjoy these lovely threads, with alarmists foaming at the mouth... attacking anyone not on board. Good theater, indeed.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:53am PT
Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can.

At least China is doing something. They have actually cancelled plans for many coal-fired plants that were scheduled to be built.

On the 3 September 2016, China ratified the Paris Agreement, and it has policies in place to reach its NDC goals. These policies are currently centred around the targets set in its NDC, which include the target to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60%–65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total primary energy supply to around 20% by that time, and increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic meters, compared to 2005 levels.

Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 plans. The announcement that China will peak its CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions in the period after 2030...

http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html

Curt






pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:31am PT



Dingus Milktoast

In terms of carbon taxes - who gets to spend the proceeds and what will it be spent upon?

Also, I can't get behind any global agreement to limit carbon emissions that doesn't include trade sanctions or carbon-tariffs, if you prefer, for all non-compliance nations.

DMT

Brilliant,
Let's start punishing nations like Botswana and Zambia so more children can starve.
You people need a greater understanding of the repercussions of your charade.

The regurgitated rhetoric of Malamute, eeyonkee, et al.. does nothing to help this planet or the people on it. Quite the opposite.
It's inceptions, if implemented, harm those that need our help the most.

Ride a motorcycle, learn to fix things that break instead of going out and buying another, conserve everything, don't litter.
Do an inventory of your own house and pro act accordingly.
Just a small list of real things you can do that actually have a positive impact on your environment.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:34am PT
Dingus Milktoast


My charade? F*#k off pud.

DMT




internet tough guys crack me up ^^^^
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:44am PT
Ride a bicycle

Fixed it for you, pud.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 22, 2016 - 08:01am PT
Ride a motorcycle, learn to fix things that break instead of going out and buying another, conserve everything, don't litter.
Do an inventory of your own house and pro act accordingly.

Sure, personal responsibility will go a long way. Funny you forgot to mention that we need to go veggie at least one or two days a week, if not more. That's a really big one.

But, these efforts by individuals won't amount to squat if the energy secretaries of large governments don't get on board and shift away from non-renewables to sustainable energy grids.

So it will take a global, political movement. The bad news is that it's obvious we're not up to the task. As Trump would say, Sad.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:23am PT
Sorry about calling you an idiot, Bob.

So, can any of you climate deniers imagine any evidence that could be possibly discovered in the future that would change your minds? I'm thinking a very strong no. It's veracity would instantly be put into doubt by the disinformation machines out there. This is what scares me and frustrates me.

Just so you know, I'm a geologist, and 10 years ago or so I was doubting the science. I was just relying on my sense of things -- for example, that volcanic eruptions would obviously be huge inputs that might make human contributions insignificant. Also, I had been working in the environmental field, where having an end product of CO2 and water is typically what you were after. The idea of CO2 being considered a pollutant was just not on my radar.

Well, it didn't take too long to start boning up on things and realizing that there are a lot of smart scientists out there that are attending to these very questions and putting them to bed. Now, the idea that thousands of them somehow didn't think of something that Bob or Rick read on a blog post or that they are somehow in collusion even though they are from countries all over the world strikes my as hubris of the first order for the folks that believe this.

By the way, do any of you climate change deniers believe in evolution -- among other things that humans evolved from earlier species? There seems to be a strong correlation between deniers on these two topics.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:33am PT
Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. They announce their commitment to peaking emissions by 2030. By then CO2 should be over 600ppm. Maybe over 700ppm. Way to step up, China.

China is a convenient scapegoat. Their emissions per capita is way below that of the US. Yes, they are still building coal plants but they also have a lot of older, very dirty, very inefficient coal plants that they are retiring. Replacing those old plants with new, efficient plants is a clear win. They are installing a lot of renewables:

From wikipedia

China’s renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. In 2015 China became world's largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity.[1][2] China also led the world in the production and use of wind power and smart grid technologies, generating almost as much water, wind, and solar energy as all of France and Germany's power plants combined.

They are also making some efforts (not nearly enough) to move their economy from an investment/heavy industry model to a services model.

As I have posted numerous times, China does not make a good scapegoat. India is a little less worrisome because their economy is smaller, but their emissions are still a worry and I see little reason to think they will do anything meaningful.

China's population is a problem, but they had a very aggressive one-child policy to address that. (And that policy is going to cause them other serious problems going forward.) Not really clear what else they can do.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:37am PT
how many people concerned about climate change are open to limiting the US population through immigration control to ultimately reduce the impact of the USA- the country supposedly causing the most pollution. I hear a lot of talk about climate change- but I rarely hear any rational solution to alter it. Heck we have people who want to go to mars- How much pollution would that cause?
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:51am PT
1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?

A lot of the things that we could do is not going to hurt the overall economy. It will produce winners and losers but a dynamic economy does that all of the time anyway.


2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the
United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.

If the middle class is buying $40,000 electric sports sedans instead of $40,000 gas guzzline SUVs, what's the difference? Without taking pollution into account, renewables are still more expensive than coal, but the gap has narrowed a lot. This is going to be a big industry. So we have jobs in solar and wind and not in coal. Yes, some companies, employees, and stock holders get hit hard, but the overall economy won't notice.

Better insulated houses and more efficient appliances are a good thing anyway. So would eating a little less red meat.

So I think a tremendous amount could be done that didn't have a negative impact on the overall economy and we should do that.

Yes, if we were smart we would do serious planning for climate change. For instance, I don't think there is any viable way to protect Miami/southern Florida long term. We should plan on relocating Miami over the next 100 years. New Orleans also. Manhattan might be protectable, at great expense.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:53am PT
how many people concerned about climate change are open to limiting the US population through immigration control to ultimately reduce the impact of the USA- the country supposedly causing the most pollution. I hear a lot of talk about climate change- but I rarely hear any rational solution to alter it. Heck we have people who want to go to mars- How much pollution would that cause?

An immigrant to the US will usually use more resources than if they stayed in a less developed country (although they (and their kids) may also have a higher birth rate if they stay). That is a benefit of less immigration.

I think humans in space is a complete waste across the board. I'm also opposed to supersonic plane travel here on earth. But the wealthy are going to spend their money on something. I would rather wealth was more evenly spread.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:55am PT
Sorry, but I'm just responding to the OP.

People are confused about climate change. Much like evolution, politicians have gotten involved and thrown out a ton of bad information. Fracking is the same way. I know a lot about it, and there is so much bad info on the web that an intelligent person can't understand it.

Also, it isn't something that we will feel in our lifetimes. It is a long term problem, and we seem to be incapable of making decisions that are painful or economically expensive, when the consequences are in the future. Humans are practically wired that way.

We won't accept it as a species until it hits us in the face. By that time, consequences will occur and it will be too late. In a sense.

The physics of the problem are pretty straightforward. That said, I doubt that the current political leadership in this country will do anything about climate change.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 22, 2016 - 12:12pm PT
Before Trump said that Climate Change was something the Chinese invented, I had never heard anything like that. Apparently he has even said he meant it as a joke. Is everything he says a joke?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html?_r=0

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-tells-trump-climate-change-153843365.html

http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/admininst/shared/doc-professors/luterbacher%20chapter%202%20102.pdf


Also, it isn't something that we will feel in our lifetimes.

Probably not true unless you mean in a show-stopping way. The flooding of the New York Subways and a substantially higher percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere say volumes. There are so many more examples! We all have to remember the well worn maxim that weather is not climate though....snicker, snicker.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Nov 22, 2016 - 12:52pm PT
Base, you make it sound like fracking is safe. But then I hear about all these cases where they claim it contaminates the ground water. What's the deal?



In response to the question in the OP, the folks in Bolivia are pretty concerned about it. La Paz is just about out of water.

This is not a small thing.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Nov 22, 2016 - 01:02pm PT
What's the big deal? We've got 1000+ years to figure it out, if nothing else requires our attention in the mean time. But, heck, we've got big brains - why should a little struggle for survival get in the way of working out the solution to this problem?

http://m.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1117/Why-Stephen-Hawking-says-we-have-1-000-years-to-find-a-new-home
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Nov 22, 2016 - 01:33pm PT
In regards to fraccing:
Groundwater contamination usually occurs due to casing integrity issues and poor cement jobs (including cementing just above and below a producing zone instead of cementing to surface). Better regulations and engineering practices will dramatically decrease the probability of this occurring.
Of course this costs money and many companies will only do what they have to (just squeak by and not exceed regulations).
The chances of fraccing up into the groundwater is non existent (assuming good casing integrity) unless there are major faults that continue up to shallow depths. Almost all faults peter out long before the surface.
I know there have been cases of gas in ground water caused by naturally occurring shallow coal seams which water wells have drilled through.
Gas analysis can determine which zone the gas comes from.
Reports of ground water contamination should be investigated by impartial groups conducting a thorough analysis.
The oil and gas industry, like all others, should not be self regulated. This is the job of the govt
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 04:04pm PT
Damn, Malemute -- that is an overwhelming number of relevant links might I say! A person could learn a lot about the subject from these links (if you can get past the inclusion of punters like Hawking and Sagan -- not to mention Asimov).
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:42pm PT
I'm kind of surprised that somebody on the denier team did not challenge my challenge to them of coming up with a plausible scenario where some new piece of information could make them concede that, indeed, the other team is correct in the science.

I assumed that somebody would throw this right back in my face. So, let me tell you how I might plausibly change my opinion.

Let me start off by saying that it is highly improbable that this could happen because of the checks and balances in the science community. Having said that. Let's say that essentially all climate models that predict catastrophic human-caused global warming depended on this "constant" -- you know, values like 3.47 or 0.000037. Now let's say that the guy who came up with that constant suddenly realized that he was supposed to be using "metric". If I, as a climate modeler depended on the value of this constant for my model going one way or the other; I would concede that I was wrong after finding out about this new piece of information.

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:58pm PT
Thanks for the recommendation on the Tyson video, Malemute! I didn't see that the first time through. As Trump might say, "Very effective!".
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:01pm PT
TGT2....When did you start wearing coveralls..?
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
Trump has changed his mind about climate change. Lol.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
EdwardT said
I'm not saying the consensus is wrong,... just that we (mankind) are not going to effectively address this issue anytime soon.


This, to me, is like not voting or voting for Johnson in the last election. You are being a punter. What needs to be clarified is the veracity of the science vs. the reasonable solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem. As Malemute has been saying all along, there are a few individuals - the Koch brothers, in particular, that are invested in obfuscating the facts.
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:51pm PT
This, to me, is like not voting or voting for Johnson in the last election. You are being a punter.

Apparently, you're a moron.

What needs to be clarified is the veracity of the science vs. the reasonable solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem.

Or maybe not.

Reasonable solutions? Enlighten us to reasonable solutions that would reverse the trend of rising CO2 levels. The key word being "reasonable. Something the global leaders would agree to and stick by.

I've asked this question for years. People offer clean energy options. Unfortunately, they're little more than bandaids on a severed artery.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
Probably, by this time no matter what is done Miami will sleep with the fishys. Sad.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 22, 2016 - 08:08pm PT
Ed, Rick, Bob and the rest of your team -- you want to rebut Asimov and Hawking and Musk and Sagan, et al? They must've missed the blog you read.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Nov 22, 2016 - 09:04pm PT
There's a chance I think that Pres DJT just might turn out to be a blessing in disguise... on a number of issues... incl climate change.

Boy, that would be something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/at-lunch-donald-trump-gives-critics-hope.html

If he studies the issue "very deeply" and ends up "moderating his views" then he could be "very influential" with the "deniers".

How about that? :)

...


Feel that?

It is the "normalization" of Trump that is underway.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Nov 22, 2016 - 09:09pm PT
^^^^^^That rascal!
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:48pm PT
Here is my own,give me one problem in this world where the "free market" has come to the rescue and solved it.

What do you mean by "free market?" Certain conditions need to apply for a market to perform properly. Property rights probably top the list, along with predictable and consistent law enforcement.

The list where the market (meaning using prices to allocate goods and services) have rescued from benighted alternatives would overwhelm these pages and co-opt this thread, which was about dealing with climate change. Still, feeding the world's population would be a good start. Central planning killed millions of citizens in the USSR. Markets allocate food resources (and the resources needed to produce food) much more efficiently than centrally-regulated ones, or any other option.

Of course, those who decry our current population would point this out as a problem, not a rescue, but my retort is both mean and simple. If you contend the population is too high, why are you still alive? Any rational, moral answer to that question will include the need to feed the current population.

John
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 23, 2016 - 01:24am PT
If you contend the population is too high, why are you still alive?

I think that is a false statement of the problem. We can certainly do a lot without killing ourselves, and killing ourselves won't help unless it happens at the birth rate...

since we will all die, a more effective attempt reducing the population would be to provide women the ability to plan their families.

The markets cannot expand exponentially, the resources are limited, so there is no market solution to the problem of providing food for an expanding population once those resource limits are reached.
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Nov 23, 2016 - 03:37am PT
The markets cannot expand exponentially, the resources are limited, so there is no market solution to the problem of providing food for an expanding population once those resource limits are reached.

Food shortages are a similar issue we faced with water. Increased efficiency has bailed us out of the alleged water shortage.

There are huge gains to be had in our food production system

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

At present, the US livestock population consumes more than 7 times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population (11). The amount of grains fed to US livestock is sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based diet (7). From the US livestock population, a total of about 8 million tons (metric) of animal protein is produced annually. With an average distribution assumed, this protein is sufficient to supply about 77 g of animal protein daily per American. With the addition of about 35 g of available plant protein consumed per person, a total of 112 g of protein is available per capita in the United States per day (11). Note that the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for adults per day is 56 g of protein from a mixed diet. Therefore, based on these data, each American consumes about twice the RDA for protein. Americans on average are eating too much and are consuming about 1000 kcal in excess per day per capita (12, 13). The protein consumed per day on the lactoovovegetarian diet is 89 g per day. This is significantly lower than the 112 g for the meat-based diet but still much higher than the RDA of 56 g per day.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 23, 2016 - 05:05am PT
The only way out of this is a free market approach, and a huge financial enterprising incentive for some smart Americans (not Canadian’s – you can’t seem to get over yourselves pointing figures) to solve the problem – which they will do eventually.

BobSFranknose.

Sure,I could generalize that markets are responsible for some of the things you mentioned JE.Would that be an answer to the above.
Hardly.

I could also state that "free markets" are the reason we have this mess[CC],not to mention current war[s]..

So ,when you ask me what did I mean,give me a specific,just one ,where the free market solved any world problem.

That is what I mean.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 23, 2016 - 06:42am PT
Do you think the "free market" has provided society with anything beneficial?
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Nov 23, 2016 - 07:11am PT
How about a "Hands Across The World" event?

We can all sing Kumbaya...

then promise to do our darndest to minimize our carbon footprints.

It could work.

We won't know unless we try.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 23, 2016 - 08:50am PT
How about a "Hands Across The World" event?


couldn't hurt...

but reducing the carbon footprint using a carbon tax will provide the incentives for people to choose what they want to pay for... you want to drive a Hummer around? you can, you just pay the price of the carbon emission... eat beef, sure thing, at added costs... buy that knick-knack manufactured in S.E. Asia and shipped, at less then $0.10/pound anywhere in the world... the price goes up, but you get to buy it if you want...

figuring all that out top down would be impossible, letting the market equilibrate naturally (with all the unexpected innovation, etc) would be much more efficient.

the revenue generated by the tax can be used to mitigate the burden on those people (and countries) that would be adversely affected by tax, but also to invest in the mitigations that reduce the carbon emissions, research AND development, incentives to use alternatives.

Energy will cost more because the costs will include the exhaust-end expenses, including the cost of alternative energy, whose production and implementation is currently carbon dependent.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:00am PT
Carbon taxes only hurt the poor who use the least resources. You think Bono gives s damn about pollution on world tour with U2? Have you thought about the plight of the people commuting from Stockton to SF to work in the service industry? How much more will those carbon taxes cost them to earn a living?
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:04am PT
Bono does not have to give a sh it about pollution. With a stiff carbon tax on fuel the corporations running his jets are sure as hell going to find the most efficient way to make money. Classic free market operation
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:05am PT
you can focus on what is taken away by a tax, but you should also think how the revenue of the tax could be distributed, which is equally important...

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:10am PT
How about a carrot? Instead of a ( tax ) stick?

Even Republicans will get behind a tax break.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:16am PT
It would likely go to illegals as much if our social services do. Perhaps we should enforce our border and not allow a massive overpopulation of the US. Perhaps we should scrap NASA and any plans for the moon. Same for space tourism

CA fines people for using to much water- do the rich care? Same thing with a carbon tax
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:18am PT
a carbon tax would affect everyone... as does the consequences of unabated CO2 release into the atmosphere, an atmosphere that is shared by everyone...

the planet is a shared resource for the entire human population... closing the boarders doesn't change that
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:19am PT
It would affect the poor far more. As always that's of no concern for those doing fine
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:20am PT
the use of the tax revenue can make the carbon tax progressive, alleviating the burden on those that cannot afford it as much as others
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:24am PT
That's like saying illegals will lower the cost of arugula while not caring that they lower wages and increase job competition amongst the poor. The idea that a carbon tax will "trickle down" to the poor is absurd
10b4me

Mountain climber
Retired
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:24am PT

It would likely go to illegals as much if our social services do. Perhaps we should enforce our border and not allow a massive overpopulation of the US. Perhaps we should scrap NASA and any plans for the moon. Same for space tourism

Here we go again. It's always about the damned illegals.
Dude, do you not understand that the world as a whole is overpopulated?

Note: I actually agree with you on something. I am in favor of reducing space exploration.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:26am PT
The US is the worst polluter.how can you be concerned about the climate while promoting overpopulation? Same as the mars nonsense. It's hypocritical.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:38am PT
Hypocritical my ass.

So you cannot have an opinion or stance against the oil machine when you are forced to be part of it. BS.

Renewables ,renewables,renewables. They are our way out of oil companies control.
Whilst creating a new economy.

Yes,I know you stockholders could suffer
Good.
c wilmot

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:44am PT
Wilbeer- its hypocritical to want to go to mars while saying you are concerned about climate change. You misunderstood my comment.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:47am PT
A broad carbon taxing Scheme is the wet dream of scientists who see a funding conduit for endless studies. Some of these scientists are multi generational and are rightly concerned for their progeny who they encouraged to join the family business.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 23, 2016 - 09:51am PT
Cling to that Rick. It will be nice for you and yours not hearing NASA announce the hottest year ever ,every year.




About sick of hearing about hypocrites .
dirtbag

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 10:01am PT
If Clinton was elected, NASA climate funding wouldn't be in jeopardy.

It will be burned down, however, just like you wished.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 23, 2016 - 11:23am PT
So, my (and Malemute's) posts have focused on getting an agreement on the fact that human-caused climate change is real. If half of the American people don't even believe that, it's hard to even start to have useful arguments on what we can do. Once you DO concede that it is happening, doing nothing is clearly not an appropriate response.

It seems to me that there are two categories of response; mitigating the global warming effect itself, and mitigating the repercussions. To be perfectly honest, I'm kind of a pessimist that we can do much about the first, although we have to try. If you deny the science, you greatly hurt you ability to appropriately respond to the repercussions.

Most of civilization lives near the coast. There will be lots of displacements of humans from the very near coast to higher locales. There will be disruptions in fisheries as the acidifying oceans kill off shallow water fish. There will be a bunch of this kind of stuff. It's going to cost trillions. We are going to have to weigh the after-the-fact cost with the prevention cost, knowing that the preventative measures may or may not work.

I write risk assessment software for a living. Setting the proper weight for the likely effectiveness of the preventative measures in light of their costs seems like one of the harder terms to get right. It's going to take really good science.
dirtbag

climber
Nov 23, 2016 - 11:52am PT
Good thing she lost, then.

NASA funding should always be in jeopardy, otherwise its just entitlement.

DMT

You know what I mean. Cmon.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 23, 2016 - 12:00pm PT
Hey, so I hadn't really thought so much about this problem from a risk assessment standpoint. Duh! It is exactly a risk assessment problem -- and people are wired not to properly assess risk when the consequences are in the future.

I've been involved with writing risk assessment software for the oil and gas pipeline industry for the last 16 years. The most basic equation in risk assessment is Risk = Likelihood x Consequence. With pipelines, when they are within high population or environmentally-sensitive areas, they will typically have a very high Consequence (of failure); much higher say than somewhere in the Mojave desert. High risk on the Likelihood side is typically the result of being in areas in which idiots are likely to drill or run into the pipeline or where older pipe is in a highly-corrosive environment or where the pipeline crosses the San Andreas fault or something.

From a risk assessment standpoint, consequence is typically the side of the basic equation that can be defined most accurately. Likelihood is always the tougher of the two to predict. In the case of climate change, the likelihood side of the equation is obvious to the people who study the problem. The remaining questions are really all about the timing and extent. It is not to the general public.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 23, 2016 - 12:39pm PT
Let me start off by saying that it is highly improbable that this could happen because of the checks and balances in the science community. Having said that. Let's say that essentially all climate models that predict catastrophic human-caused global warming depended on this "constant" -- you know, values like 3.47 or 0.000037. Now let's say that the guy who came up with that constant suddenly realized that he was supposed to be using "metric". If I, as a climate modeler depended on the value of this constant for my model going one way or the other; I would concede that I was wrong after finding out about this new piece of information.

They have climate records that go back thousands of years in time. They have run the computer model against historical records to see if the models can recreate the changes that happened in the past. If the model was that far off, they wouldn't be able to do that.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 23, 2016 - 12:47pm PT
The idea that a carbon tax will "trickle down" to the poor is absurd

Economically and technically it wouldn't be hard at all to have some form of a trickle down carbon tax.

You could, for instance, raise the gas tax (over some period of time) to 2 or 3 dollars a gallon. You then take all of this revenue and divide it by the number of Americans that have a social security number (or maybe you would want to limit it to those over 18), and write them all checks every 3 or six months (or tack it onto their tax return). So a poor person who doesn't own a car, or is frugal in car driving gets a subsidy and the person who puts a lot of mileage on a big SUV loses out.

Trucks would contribute a large amount of revenue. The income a poor person would get from this would be significant compared to their overall income. For middle calls and above it would not. So this would be progressive in the same way that sales tax and flat tax are regressive.

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 23, 2016 - 12:56pm PT
From the first link of the last post by Malemute.

... which is in turn influenced by the underlying strength of the THC. When the THC is strong, this warms the North Atlantic (increasing the N-S SST gradient), whereas when the THC is weak, this cools the North Atlantic (decreasing the N-S SST gradient). The Atlantic THC exhibits natural, ...


As somebody from Boulder, I find this quite interesting...I had no idea.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Nov 25, 2016 - 06:31am PT
"Save water by taking shorter showers and abstaining from washing your car."

This guy must not actually get a water bill. Shorter showers is a BS answer.

Rip up your lawn and you save water. My water bill ranges from 15-25 thousand gallons in the summer to 2000-3000 gallons in the winter. You can guess the difference isn't from longer showers in the summer...

eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 25, 2016 - 01:31pm PT
More good links Malemute! Appreciate your efforts. This thread is becoming a good compilation of relevant links. It's educational to sit down (with a beer (or two -- oil cans even) or not) and peruse them.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 25, 2016 - 10:06pm PT
TGT2, how does your brain muster the sufficient spark to make your lungs work, because it certainly hasn't generated an intelligent thought on this thread.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 05:18pm PT
what is it about internet forums that causes otherwise intelligent people to resort to ad hominem arguments?

There are the types who have no argument, no rebuttal, and no understanding of the issues, so no recourse but to direct their posts against the poster.

There are the types who feel they have to react against the (intentionally) provoking posts (which may also be irrelevant), posts which need no response (indeed, they elicit response, and not through the relevance to the topic at hand).

If some member of the STForum community wants to post silliness in an effort to provoke, why not let them, and leave it alone. The posts speak for themselves, need no further comment.




Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 27, 2016 - 05:34pm PT
That's exactly why more people aren't concerned about climate change.

Malamute is a perfect example of what is turning people off. Never misses a chance to hurl an insult.

Multiply Malemute by a thousand, spread them around the country, and people just tune out.

And you wonder how a revenue-neutral carbon tax initiative won't pass in Washington State of all places.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 06:12pm PT
So Chaz, your argument is that because people are unpleasant, you won't listen to their arguments even if they are good ones? If we were all polite, and used language that wasn't interpreted by others as intimidating, then we might actually start to make progress on climate change?

Interesting that you would suggest this avenue for making progress.

For those you might point to on oneside of the discussion, there seem to be an equal number on the other side... perhaps both sides should find a way to be polite.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 27, 2016 - 06:21pm PT
I do know that if you're selling something, it helps to be pleasant.

Especially if what you're selling, you're keeping secret.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 27, 2016 - 06:34pm PT
A new term comes to mind ,"weekend denier" might just fit.

Is that insulting?

Or more just to the point,the evidence is in,really.Malemute is correct and has put up with just the same.

Climate Change certainly turns some off,oh well,the problem does not care .
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 06:36pm PT
Ed, you are correct. Next time, I will listen to the better angels of my nature.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 06:59pm PT
Especially if what you're selling, you're keeping secret.

The whole point of the discussion of the science of climate change, and the consequences of that change and of the possible mitigations, is it to have it in the open

Certainly all the R&D that the USG does is done in the open, every detail.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Nov 27, 2016 - 07:03pm PT
At Miami Beach the ocean level is rising 1/3 inch per year and accelerating.

Probably best not to retire there. At least on land.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 27, 2016 - 07:07pm PT
Yes indeed.

Look ,an attempt by the Free Market.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/big-business-donald-trump-paris-climate-deal_us_582d0818e4b030997bbd7d11
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 27, 2016 - 08:14pm PT
Failure to do so “puts American prosperity at risk,” Nike, eBay, The North Face and hundreds of other U.S. companies wrote in an open letter Wednesday addressed to Trump, President Barack Obama, members of Congress and global leaders.

Haha !
Blackmail attempt by Chinese product brokers.
This will work.

Let the free market decide what is best for the planet.
What possible conflicts of interest could there be?

The proposed carbon tax is like giving money to an alcoholic thinking he will spend it on rehab.
Fools get what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us are along for the ride.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 08:39pm PT
Let the free market decide what is best for the planet.
What possible conflicts of interest could there be?

The proposed carbon tax is like giving money to an alcoholic thinking he will spend it on rehab.
Fools get what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us are along for the ride.


the "free market" approach to North Atlantic Cod completely decimated the species population, the result of which collapsed the Northeastern American fishing industry. The argument was made that people with a vested interest (the fishermen) knew better than the scientists studying the various fish species... that the "market" should decide, and what it decided, essentially, was to continue to over fish, and basically killed that industry.

The "tragedy of the commons" plays out in a number of ways, and it is well known that the "free market" approach does not result in the preservation of common resources.

The atmosphere is a common resource, shared by everyone, but we do not "pay" for the use of it, especially true of the stuff we exhaust into it. The "free market" will not fix this problem, and the results are even more far ranging than the collapse of the various industrially fished wild species.

A carbon tax, which necessarily is a part of government management of this resource (the atmosphere), reflects the cost of one aspect of our use of the atmosphere, as a dump for carbon. By costing that use, and attaching it to the source of the carbon (the fossil fuels) the cost of that energy source goes up. The "free market" gets to decide whether to use that energy source at the increased cost, or to seek alternatives.

The government uses the tax revenue to mitigate the adverse effect on the poor, and to fund R&D for alternatives, while providing a disincentive to exhausting the waste into the atmosphere.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 27, 2016 - 08:47pm PT
In the age of Trump? That's going to be one tough sell.

Look around the rest of the country. There are only three or four other states like California who have both Democrat governors and Democrat majority legislatures.

What kind of strategy would you have for getting the Republicans to go along with tax increases to fund bigger government?
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 27, 2016 - 09:00pm PT
Let the free market decide what is best for the planet.
What possible conflicts of interest could there be?

I hope you caught the sarcasm in this statement Ed.
I'm not sure I could argue this point as eloquently as you have.

Giving millions of dollars to corrupt governments in the hope they will use it in good faith is a catastrophic fail.

Punishing nations that do not subscribe to the global warming crusader's ideas and beliefs is criminal.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 09:05pm PT
if you are asking me, I take a longer view of it than just one administration, or one Congress, or one state legislature...

talking about California, it wasn't long ago that there was a Republican Governor... and the same sort of partisan chaos on budgets, taxes, etc... redistricting and electoral reform (initiative driven) have considerably changed that...
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 27, 2016 - 09:18pm PT
Giving millions of dollars to corrupt governments in the hope they will use it in good faith is a catastrophic fail.

Punishing nations that do not subscribe to the global warming crusader's ideas and beliefs is criminal.


It is hard to disagree with the point that the tax revenue should be not be used for corrupt ends, and I don't think anyone has proposed that.

"Punishing nations" is not what we're talking about, paying for the use of a resource, such as exhausting CO2 into the atmosphere, is what the issue at hand is about. A nation could very well decide not to pay, but their goods might be tariffed in international trade as a consequence. They make a choice, as one of many users of the atmosphere, but the community of users have recourse to recover those unpaid costs.

The issue of climate change, and its relationship with human activity, is not just an ideology, it stands on solid scientific findings. While these findings may not be able to tell us what, exactly, is going to happen, the range of possible futures represents a risk of substantial consequence.

Because we can mitigate that risk by altering human activity, and our ability to mitigate depends on early action, it is natural to consider the most efficient mechanism for altering that activity, a carbon tax.
Al Barkamps

Social climber
Red Stick
Nov 27, 2016 - 09:37pm PT
...is not just an ideology, it stands on solid scientific findings.

Human history is replete with catastrophic events that were built on ideology, with all logic to the contrary. Our response to global warming will be no different, until it's far too late, as it is now.

None of my kids currently see the point in subjecting offspring to our stupidities; logic just continues to confirm this daily. So, in a way, we're doing our part: reducing our future footprint by keeping a new generation from adding more mouths to a mangled planet.

In the meantime, we've grabbed a few deckchairs and are enjoying the band as the Titanic lists a little more.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Nov 27, 2016 - 09:49pm PT
Also, I can't get behind any global agreement to limit carbon emissions that doesn't include trade sanctions or carbon-tariffs, if you prefer, for all non-compliance nations.

DMT

This type of thinking is common among the GW crowd.
It takes from those that have the least.
How arrogant the thought of starving children to save the planet.
I mean, what the f*#k?

A nation could very well decide not to pay, but their goods might be tariffed in international trade as a consequence. They make a choice, as one of many users of the atmosphere, but the community of users have recourse to recover those unpaid costs.

Putting tarriffs on traded goods of a nation because it does not or cannot participate in the GW band aid theory is punishment.
The narrow mind is a dangerous thing.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 28, 2016 - 01:06am PT
Putting tarriffs on traded goods of a nation because it does not or cannot participate in the GW band aid theory is punishment.
The narrow mind is a dangerous thing.


You have setup a strawman here, assuming an implementation that is overly simplistic to make a point that is obviously extreme. The further assumption that this is the result of a "narrow mind" is similarly unwarranted.

Tariffs, in an international free trade regime, can only happen with the affirmation of the trading partners.

If a poor nation cannot afford the increased energy costs that it will take to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, resources can be made available (from the tax revenue, for example) to offset the increased energy costs, but certainly not for energy that generates CO2.

Nations that decide not to tax carbon, but otherwise could, are not being punished, they are paying their share of the use of the atmosphere for dumping their CO2. They can certainly decide to do that, they cannot get out of paying their bill.

But there are many implementation strategies that take the various factors, including the poor nations (and people) of the world.

The disparaging comment regarding "GW band aid theory" might indicate that you have questions regarding how the risk and consequences of anthropogenic climate change are established. While it may seem to you to be easier to argue that poor people will starve to death, you have little evidence that this would happen. In the worst-case scenario of anthropogenic climate change people will likely face grave shortages of food and water and other life sustaining necessities.

A case can be made that letting it happen is worse for the very people that you are concerned about than the proposed mitigations would be.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:15am PT
an interesting study from the American Physical Society on the cost of taking the CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere out...

http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/assessments/upload/dac2011.pdf

from the Executive Summary:

"This report explores direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere with chemicals. DAC involves a system in which ambient air flows over a chemical sorbent that selectively removes the CO2. The CO2 is then released as a concentrated stream for disposal or reuse, while the sorbent is regenerated and the CO2-depleted air is returned to the atmosphere.

To guide the reader to an understanding of the factors affecting costs, a benchmark system is introduced that could be built today. With optimistic assumptions about some important technical parameters, the cost of this system is estimated to be of the order of $600 or more per metric ton of CO2. Significant uncertainties in the process parameters result in a wide, asymmetric range associated with this estimate, with higher values being more likely than lower ones. Thus, DAC is not currently an economically viable approach to mitigating climate change. Any commercially interesting DAC system would require significantly lower avoided CO2 costs, and thus would likely have a design very different from the benchmark system investigated in this report. This report identifies some of the key issues that need to be addressed in alternative designs.

The physical scale of the air contactor in any DAC system is a formidable challenge. A typical contactor will capture about 20 tons of CO2 per year for each square meter of area through which the air flows. Since a 1000-megawatt coal power plant emits about six million metric tons of CO2 per year, a DAC system consisting of structures 10-meters high that removes CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as this coal plant emits CO2 would require structures whose total length would be about 30 kilometers. Large quantities of construction materials and chemicals would be required. It is likely that the full cost of the benchmark DAC system scaled to capture six million metric tons of CO2 per year would be much higher than alternative strategies providing equivalent decarbonized electricity. As a result, even if costs fall significantly, coherent CO2 mitigation would result in the deployment of DAC only after nearly all significant point sources of fossil CO2 emissions are eliminated, either by substitution of non-fossil alternatives or by capture of nearly all of their CO2 emissions."


one of a number of studies answering the question: "what are you going to do about it?"
most of these studies conclude that we should stop exhausting CO2 into the atmosphere...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:32am PT
You're preaching to your choir Ed. Minds on the other side (which it turns out is a great majority) are not open to the same old arguments and the global governance controlled bondage through taxation solution to a vastly conflated problem.

Perhaps you would be more effective at pushing more local solutions. To wit; by some estimates there are tens of millions of standing dead evergreens in your beautiful state. Would it not be wise to log these dead before fire releases the stored co2 in a true catastophe?
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Nov 28, 2016 - 10:38am PT
What kind of strategy would you have for getting the Republicans to go along with tax increases to fund bigger government?

Until they are voted out of office, I think the world is 'effed.

On a more wonkish note: since the government needs some level of tax income, we could create carbon taxes and offset it with reduced taxes somewhere else. And for gasoline taxes, I would be fine with adding up all of the gasoline taxes and then returning the money as part of tax rebates.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 28, 2016 - 12:17pm PT
Mr West writes:

"On a more wonkish note: since the government needs some level of tax income, we could create carbon taxes and offset it with reduced taxes somewhere else."



That's exactly what was on the ballot in WA ( I-732 ) It was going to give a tax cut to every single person in Washington in exchange for enacting a carbon tax on those who spew carbon. It lost.

Not even The Sierra Club thought it was a good idea.

http://www.sierraclub.org/washington/sierra-club-position-carbon-washington-ballot-initiative-732

Washington voted Hillary in a landslide. Legalized gay marriage and marijuana by initiative. But a revenue-neutral carbon tax couldn't get any support there in the greenest of green states.

The science may be settled, but a lot of hearts and minds are still up in the air.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 28, 2016 - 01:07pm PT
" That's exactly what was on the ballot in WA ( I-732 ) It was going to give a tax cut to every single person in Washington in exchange for enacting a carbon tax on those who spew carbon. It lost.

Not even The Sierra Club thought it was a good idea."

Actually the Sierra Club opposed it because they didn't want it to be tax neutral. They wanted a far more extreme and bureaucratic policy, where it would all be a tax increase, with all the new money to be spent on their pet projects. So they were far too eco-nutty about what voters will accept, refused to accept anything less, thereby confusing the voters and getting nothing accomplished.

I also suspect there are a number of voters who don't want Washington state to unilaterally take such action if most other states don't. But they would be in favor of a revenue neutral carbon tax if:
A. It is done on a federal level and
B. Other countries also quickly comply with reasonable decreases on their own GHG emissions, at least a majority of the major emitting countries.

The biggest impediment is actually A, not B.

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Nov 28, 2016 - 01:12pm PT
"Minds on the other side (which it turns out is a great majority) are not open"

Wrong.
The majority of people do accept the scientific consensus of climate change. Trump, you, and Koch are in the denier minority.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 28, 2016 - 01:17pm PT
You're preaching to your choir Ed. Minds on the other side (which it turns out is a great majority) are not open to the same old arguments and the global governance controlled bondage through taxation solution to a vastly conflated problem.


What the hell does this even mean?
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Nov 28, 2016 - 03:24pm PT
and the global governance controlled bondage through taxation solution to a vastly conflated problem.
This is the part I am having trouble with, specifically.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 28, 2016 - 05:30pm PT
I have talked of this earlier,it will be here and I will help fund it.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/07/28/experimental-artificial-leaf-solar-cell-converts-co2-usable-fuel?cmpid=ait-ad-fb-keywee&kwp_0=270379&kwp_4=1035091&kwp_1=488216
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 28, 2016 - 06:48pm PT
That a boy
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 28, 2016 - 08:16pm PT
To wit; by some estimates there are tens of millions of standing dead evergreens in your beautiful state. Would it not be wise to log these dead before fire releases the stored co2 in a true catastophe?

Interesting question, but it turns out that the amount of timber exceeds the annual harvest by a factor of about 10, and much of the wood is not suitable for lumber, and is used other ways, including being burned for energy and more often just burned.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-has-66-million-dead-trees-and-nowhere-8337745.php

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/13/local/me-wood13

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2016/04/22/trying-keep-dead-trees-california-forests/83400444/
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:26pm PT
There was an editorial in the LA Times a while back on this. The writer,
of no little repute, said those dead snags are more or less business as
usual - nothing to see, folks, y'all can go home and quit reading the
media's frothy sensationalism. Now, I admit it looks bad but she had
solid numbers to back up her assertions.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 28, 2016 - 10:33pm PT
Looks to me like decades of too aggressive of fire fighting efforts and the forced retreat of commercial harvesters are significant contributers to a too dense forest ecosystem that is highly susceptible to die off from infestation and drought.
clifff

Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
Nov 30, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
ANTHROPOCENE

"Published on Nov 15, 2016

Human impacts on the way our planet functions have now become so extreme many scientists are claiming the Earth has shifted out of the Holocene state and into a new geological epoch. They’re calling it ‘The Anthropocene’, the new age of humans, because millions of years after we are gone, the scar of our existence will be visible in the rocks of tomorrow. In this episode we look at how the last 60 years of socio economic growth has transformed the human race into a geological force to rival nature."

[Click to View YouTube Video]


What the 1% Don't Want You to Know
Bill Moyers :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 30, 2016 - 11:43pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]

[Click to View YouTube Video]
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Dec 1, 2016 - 07:34am PT
Human impacts on the way our planet functions have now become so extreme many scientists are claiming the Earth has shifted out of the Holocene state and into a new geological epoch. They’re calling it ‘The Anthropocene’, the new age of humans, because millions of years after we are gone, the scar of our existence will be visible in the rocks of tomorrow. In this episode we look at how the last 60 years of socio economic growth has transformed the human race into a geological force to rival nature."

It's posts like this that make the GW crowd look like a group of bored, pseudo scientists drumming up drama just so they have something to talk about.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Dec 1, 2016 - 07:47am PT
Brought to you from the bitter north ^^^
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Dec 1, 2016 - 11:56am PT
How come this is frequently treated as a political topic?
It is not
It is a scientific topic
The political part is what we will do in response.
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 1, 2016 - 01:09pm PT
(6) skeptics are willing to put some effort into understanding the science

I agree with you, Malemute, up to the point quoted above, which you do not state strongly enough. Skeptics practice science. We build our science on skepticism. Deniers and believers lacking skepticism both practice religion.

John
EdwardT

Trad climber
Retired
Dec 1, 2016 - 01:27pm PT
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions

That's not what people are interested in talking about. You've got the zealous alarmists. They want to bask in their self-righteousness, preaching to the masses, attacking all non-believers. And then you've got the folks who make sport of those zealots. the dynamic plays out on a regular basis. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's little effort to sincerely advance the cause. It's mostly about pissing on the other guy.

* Hat tip to Ed Hartouni for high value, low snark posts.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Dec 1, 2016 - 04:08pm PT

I agree with you, Malemute, up to the point quoted above, which you do not state strongly enough. Skeptics practice science. We build our science on skepticism. Deniers and believers lacking skepticism both practice religion.

And has been asked before, what does it take to become settled science?

Should I practice skepticism that smoking causes cancer?
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Dec 1, 2016 - 04:09pm PT
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions

Rather hard to focus on solutions when the party that will soon control all three branches of government mostly denies that it is happening and/or is a problem.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 1, 2016 - 04:57pm PT
what does it take to become settled science?

Religion. The scientific method doesn't allow for anything "settled." The fallacy, however, is not being skeptical. Rather, the fallacy lies in requiring "settled science" before action.

As just one example, science is not settled on predicting earthquakes, but that doesn't make it prudent to build along a known fault zone without taking the possibility that a quake could happen into account.

Similarly, you should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. But I think someone who begins smoking is foolish because our best theory suggest that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, heart attacks, and a host of other adverse health outcomes significantly.

This may seem like semantics, but I find it important precisely because I know too many people who argue that the science isn't settled, so we need not act. Understanding the meaninglessness of "settled science" helps to avoid getting lost in trying to define what constitutes something that does not exist.

John
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 1, 2016 - 07:50pm PT
I think lung cancer and cigarette smoking is an interesting analogy... certainly cigarette smoking doesn't kill you off today, next week, next month, next year or even next decade... and it might not kill you off at all... but it might.

So it is a risk whose consequences are differed, to some extent.


the timescale is of order 20 years...

Now there isn't a step-by-step explanation of how cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, by you can see that once the rate of smoking decreased, the frequency of lung cancers did too, but later...

to me this is strong evidence for the hypothesis that associates the two. But that is me...


What are YOU will to risk?

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 1, 2016 - 09:16pm PT
actually, the statement that Jody cut-and-pasted was made in early 2014, and can be found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming.html

The "September" referred to was in 2013...

Moores' statements do not contain any explanation for his views regarding anthropomorphic climate change, if someone has a link to something more substantive I'd like to see it.

Making statements is easy, backing them up is difficulty. Jody doesn't know squat about climate science, so he depends on the supposed authority of someone like Moore, where does Moore get such authority?

Certainly not through his scientific work.

For instance take the temperature anomaly from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

the sunspot numbers:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt

the recent CO2 concentration:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

and the Law Dome CO2 historic concentrations:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

and make this plot:


the blue line is the surface temperature anomaly by year. The year 2013 is marked with the vertical black dashed line...

the red line is the sunspot number by year, a proxy for the solar irradiance,

the green line is the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the purple line is the Law Dome ice core CO2 concentrations...


you can see that the temperature is not flat or falling after 2013, as the quote from Moore predicted...

also, you can see the solar sunspot activity peaked around 1960 and has been falling ever since... but the temperature anomaly is increasing through that period... so it is not the Sun causing the warming...

the increased CO2 concentration tracks nicely with the increased temperature anomaly, and though it is not so simple, it certainly is suggestive, and a deeper analysis shows the surface temperature increases are due to the increased CO2, and that the increased CO2 is due to humans.


rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 1, 2016 - 09:37pm PT
I expect, and can't wait, for Ed's consistent list of government alphabet soup agencies to be defunded out of the climate scam business. Won't it be great when these sources are discredited and their frauds so well documented that if Ed, say in another 4 years time, dared to once again cite these fraudulent agencies discredited criminal works that he would be promptly laughed off the forum.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 1, 2016 - 09:45pm PT
rick sumner, your prognostications have not been very accurate in the past.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 1, 2016 - 09:48pm PT
Gonna get cold by 2019 Ed. That's my sole prediction. My above post is just hope for change, or rather, belief the government climate science scam will be severely short changed.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
Dec 1, 2016 - 10:07pm PT
Maybe Trump will jail all of the scamming climate change heretics and put this hoax to sleep...
AP

Trad climber
Calgary
Dec 2, 2016 - 06:04am PT
Patrick Moore was not a co founder of Greenpeace, just an early member. He lies about that.
He has not authored a single science paper in a refereed journal.
He is a fraud and does not have a clue about data analysis.
Anyone with any knowledge of science, methods, and data analysis can shred his arguments with a minimum of effort

Here is a talk at Moses Znaimer's Ideas City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
PoopyPants

climber
Up in the mountains
Dec 2, 2016 - 09:04am PT
As far as solutions, from a soil science perspective I don't understand why not sequester carbon in the soil on a large scale? There are three major carbon sinks in the ocean, atmosphere and soil. We took the carbon out of the soil in the first place so why not put it back? Plants turn atmospheric carbon to biomass that can then be turned to biochar or otherwise locked up.

Our current monocultured agricultural system has depleted our soil to the point where they are dead and can only grow a crop with the addition of heavy NPK fertilizers. Farmers are in debt for their machinery, chemicals and seed with no control over their own soil.
The other option is moving to a regenerative system that is based on a perrenial polycuture that actually builds soil. Yes, there is some lost in total productivity but when considering how inherently unsustainable a chemical monoculture is it makes a lot of sense to me, especially considering we can do this and restore previously degraded land. Also, we are finding that good livestock management (holistic / mob grazing) is actually very beneficial to buidling soil so we may not all have to be vegans after all because that would suck.

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Dec 2, 2016 - 11:15am PT
"How come this is frequently treated as a political topic?
It is not
It is a scientific topic
The political part is what we will do in response.
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focusing on solutions"

I agree with talking more about solutions.
Of course that has been done many times on these threads,
and the answer in the USA is mostly just a dead end,
because:

1) the deniers often have the floor and keep interjecting nonsense in both this forum and in USA government.

2) We want every other country to act as fast as us on decreasing emissions. That is simply not going to happen in places like India where the average income is so low and just living is quite harsh. We were leaders in moving to large fossil fuel emissions and we would need to be leaders in moving off them. At this point most of Europe is far ahead of us in lower GHG emissions. In fact some are discussing putting tariffs on goods from the USA (not the other way around.) China is taking the lead in solar.
The way I see policy evolving is through lots of small steps, similar to nuclear arms reductions among the major war powers. Leading richer countries would start taking more steps such as gradually increasing carbon taxes (revenue neutral), and then helping poorer countries to follow.
That way none suffer large unilateral costs. This is basically what the climate talks have proposed for decades now. Trade restrictions can be used to enforce efforts. The USA has already mostly wasted decades of precious time.

Some reasons revenue neutral carbon taxes are so great:
Easy to impose, hard to game loopholes.
Easy to gradually increase.
Easy to offset revenue through reductions in other taxes such as income or Social Security, or sales, or ...
Easy to calculate and compare between countries.
No pick and choosing of solutions, instead just providing incentive to find alternatives.

3. We are selfish and like our wasteful habits and are too lazy to consider alternatives.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 2, 2016 - 12:41pm PT
All this "save the planet" talk is presumptuous, imo.

Global warming will simply take the planet back to the state it has enjoyed for most of its history. Seas will rise, forests will grow where now there are sheets of ice, etc. We're actually coming out of an ice age, returning to something more "normal" from a geological perspective.

Maybe something like dinosaurs can evolve again. The possibilities are endless and wonderful. "Life finds a way."

"Save the planet" REALLY means, "'Save' a narrow, human-centric perspective of what's 'nice' for some subset of us." And subset is the motive word! Some are going to be displaced as some deserts grow. But much more of the world will become habitable and arable than exists at present.

"Save the planet" presumes that the limited regions of "badness" are generalizable to the whole planet, when, actually, if history is any guide, MOST of the planet will do much better warmer.

And if humans went extinct, that would be the best way to truly "save the planet."
thebravecowboy

climber
The Good Places
Dec 2, 2016 - 12:46pm PT
anybody missing a goebels stand in?
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Dec 2, 2016 - 08:42pm PT
Similarly, you should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. But I think someone who begins smoking is foolish because our best theory suggest that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, heart attacks, and a host of other adverse health outcomes significantly.


So if I may be a little tongue-in-cheek.

Really?

REALLY???

If your kid (or grandkid) came to you and asked whether smoking causes cancer, your response would be:

Absolutely. Smoking causes cancer and it is very dangerous to your health.

or

You should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. Now I think it would be foolish to begin smoking because our best theory suggests that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, but we really just can't be sure. All those New England Journal of Medicine published studies and other peer reviewed papers, might actually all be full of sh#t. So honey, why don't you sift through all the evidence and decide if smoking is right for you.

And I should remain skeptical about whether having bacon cheeseburgers, fries, and sodas and other similar fast food for lunch and dinner everyday is bad for my health. My being 40 pounds overweight might really be because I have fat ancestors not to mention fat co-workers. According to the beverage industry, there is no proof that sugary drinks have any ill effects on your health.

And the city of Flint missed a beat. Sure, parents are upset to hear that peer reviewed science papers state that even low levels of lead exposure can cause permanent, neurological damage. What the hell have those scientist ever PROVED! REMAIN SKEPTICAL! Maybe that lead doesn't do anything.

So returning to a more wonkish seriousness.

Come on, man. Not even scientist can successfully think this way across the board. This is like economist who have this fantasy that all consumers all these perfect rational creatures carefully weighing up every economic transaction to maximize their profit. Nobody, not even economists, make all of their purchases this way.

Long after most people rationally accepted that smoking was bad for you, the tobacco industry worked hard to sow doubt. Not proof. Just a little nagging doubt. So when your buddy lights up and offers you a cigarette and you say those things cause cancer. He can just brush it off with a nervous laugh and say those doctors all full of sh#t.

Doubt makes it harder to face up to the really tough task of quitting smoking and easier to just mentally push it away.

It doesn't do us any good to win the battle of Hillary. We also have to win the battle of Trump.

Saying skepticism is warranted is just a comfortable euphemism for saying I don't want to fully commit to the consequences of dealing with reality.
pud

climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
Dec 2, 2016 - 09:13pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Dec 2, 2016 - 09:22pm PT
Saying skepticism is warranted is just a comfortable euphemism for saying I don't want to fully commit to the consequences of dealing with reality.

No. Saying skepticism is warranted is following the scientific method. We always allow for the possibility that later discoveries could change our theory.

Put another way, our current understanding of reality may change. That matters because when we dogmatically insist that we know all about reality, we make it easy for someone to blow a hole in our argument as soon as we learn something new. Why not admit that this is the best we know now, and we should act based on what we know?

As many have stated, this issue remains humanity's actions. Whether we understand all, most, some or none of the ramifications of our interactions with the universe doesn't change the fact that those interactions have consequences. Arguing over certainty distracts from the need to assess the consequences of our actions and modify them in account of that assessment. Getting hung up on skepticism distracts from the need to deal with our actions.

John
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 3, 2016 - 04:45pm PT
Arguing over certainty distracts from the need to assess the consequences of our actions and modify them in account of that assessment.

Which is why, as I said just above, I welcome global warming!

To the extent that it even makes ANY sense to talk in terms of "good" or "bad" in an evolutionary/geological context, global warming is surely a good.
rbord

Boulder climber
atlanta
Dec 3, 2016 - 04:48pm PT
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/03/climate-change-scientists-house-panel-global-temperatures-misleading

The House Committee on science, space and technology are promoting a misleading fake-news Breitbart article expressing skepticism that the earth is warming.

Breitbart as the scientific reference that the Republican house committee on science is now using!

"If the House science committee wants to understand science they should talk to climate scientists." Yea, well, not if Breitbart is telling them what they want to hear.

"Where did you get your PHD?" Bernie Sanders asked. "Trump University?" Sure, why not, its a University like Harvard is right, in the same way Breitbart are climate scientists.

Thanks Trumpistas! We're f*#ked.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Outside the Asylum
Dec 3, 2016 - 05:10pm PT
Global warming will simply take the planet back to the state it has enjoyed for most of its history. Seas will rise, forests will grow where now there are sheets of ice, etc. We're actually coming out of an ice age, returning to something more "normal" from a geological perspective.

Most people here like ice. Go away, ice-hater.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 3, 2016 - 05:23pm PT
Go away, ice-hater.

LOL

No, no, we won't go.

Actually, I'm hoping that within my lifetime Baffin Island will become a lush paradise with its towering walls poking up out of steamy forests!

Global warming can't move along fast enough for me.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 3, 2016 - 05:51pm PT
The best compelling evidence is a prediction that turns out to be right.

No, actually, that's not correct. An infinite number of theories are consistent with ANY set of facts. So, NO pile of evidence can suggest even a single step toward CONFIRMING, or even "nodding toward," any particular theory.

All the scientific method can do is (at best) falsification of theories, never confirmation of theories.

And, in the context of looking for compelling evidence that a theory is incorrect (which was the context of the comment you responded to), "the best compelling evidence" would be evidence that did NOT cohere with the theory in question. Because....

See above.

Give me global warming, or give me death (apologies to Patrick Henry).
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 3, 2016 - 06:13pm PT
^ useless hyperbole

Only to those who prefer to pontificate in ignorance. If you're going to "correct" others, you should at least be correct in your "correction."

You know, it's a function of intellectual honesty.

LOL

Give me global warming, or give me death!
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
Dec 3, 2016 - 06:23pm PT
Madbolter...Steamy ropes...LOL...
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Dec 3, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
And he's been mad at the world ever since.

Uh, right. And you get THAT from my post? LOL

Clearly you "see" exactly what you want to see. Yeah, that's science in action.

Look, goofball, if you can't see the "refutation" of your ridiculous confirmationism, then there is no help for you.

So, yeah, just continue on in your delusional echo chamber ("correcting" others along the way, ROFL). That's just what I've observed from you perpetually.

Let's cut to the chase: You don't like me, and now I don't like you. Blah, blah, blah. The net effect remains: Science does NOT "prove," "indicate," "confirm," or in ANY other way "show" anything. It has no capacity to do that. So, there CAN be no "compelling evidence" that ANY theory is "correct."

Science can ONLY disprove theories, never confirm them. But don't take my word for it....

[Click to View YouTube Video]

Seriously. Watch it and learn something. After all, this is one of the gods of physics talking.