An inconvenient truth

[Slap Stick]

Really? To solve for X you must remove x in a scientific experiment.
And models again are just that. Models based on what? Theories. Hypotheses. Not observed data.
Using theories and hypotheses to prove climate change is man made proves nothing. All it does is come up with a conclusion which is based on the data that is fed. It assumes a conclusion before the experiment is run.
If you want to prove a theory you must use observed data not generated data.
How do you.prove something is a cause if you do not run an experiment which eliminates what you think is the cause?

 

[funknut]

You know, this gave me a CRAZY idea...but then again, at one time is was "crazy" to think humans could fly. We have a lot of very clever people + scientists/engineers on this site, so who knows?

Now, the CRAZY idea....what if we could intentionally "pollute" the air (or upper atmosphere) during solar maximums & then "clean" the air during solar minimums? That wouldn't stop hurricanes or floods altogether, but we could sort of "smooth out" the Earth's climate so weather is more consistent.....crazy, I know....just a thought. OK guys, anyone have an idea?

This is considered solar radiation management (SRM) and it is a well studied concept. Spray some stuff in the upper atmosphere to block the inbound sunlight to offset the warming caused by CO2.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

 

[mopar 3 B]

Still would be more beneficial if everyone that believes man will end mans existence with climate change would just stop breathing for a 10 minute continues period. If that was possible how many holes would really be needed? What would be the percentage of population drop? Would it really save humanity?
Now can we create a model to test this theory?

 

[Jcharger]

The questions being asked simple. Are we in a period when climate is changing? And have humans played a role in this change? The reason we are interested in these questions is because the first could have an impact on the quality of life in the future (good or bad) and the second is most likely because if humans play a role then decisions can be made about whether to try to change this role. I only say most likely because there could be someone who doesn't care about the role of humans for human's sake, but just considers humans to be a variable.

Here we see presented a number of arguments that say the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable (because we cannot put the world in a lab, because the records are incomplete, because the system is complex), some arguments that say why worry (conditions have been this way in the geologic past) and some arguments that advocate killing off of those that disagree. I'll ignore the last two because they don't address the questions.

I think we all agree that there are 'yes' or 'no' answers to the two questions. So the question is really whether we can provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer, or instead, whether we can provide a probability other than 50%/50% for whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no'. Framed this way, we can then work toward evaluating the observations we have using what we know about physics and chemistry, possibly biology and geology, to determine whether it is probably that there is change or not, and whether the things we know humans have done (clearing forests, growing rice, building drag strips and parking lots and cities, changing the amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, in the environment, and so forth) are sufficient to account for part of all of this change. All we are talking about is the probability of change. Not the absolute whether it happened or not. All I have said is that a lot of very smart people (I am not suggesting you are not smart) who use an approach that is driven by the evidence and the information on physics and chemistry, have converged on a similar conclusion. That the available data very very strongly suggests climate is changing and that the understanding of the way climate operates and the changes humans have made to the environment strongly suggests a role for humans.

 

[Dipstick]

I often wonder what the naysayers think happens to all the crap that humans have spewed into the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Age goes....just disappears?

 

[wahya]

It all just goes away,eventually.

 

[mopar 3 B]

So just what do you think the solution is that will not put millions of people out of work and in jeopardy of starving or freezing to death. Might as well hold your breath and see how that goes. All we are doing now is moving the source of pollution to where it is not regulated.
Advanced technology is so far out of touch financially and in reality the amount of return for the buck is just not there.
I have no objection to a viable and realistic solution. I just have not seen one yet.

 

[funknut]

So just what do you think the solution is that will not put millions of people out of work and in jeopardy of starving or freezing to death. Might as well hold your breath and see how that goes. All we are doing now is moving the source of pollution to where it is not regulated.
Advanced technology is so far out of touch financially and in reality the amount of return for the buck is just not there.
I have no objection to a viable and realistic solution. I just have not seen one yet.

I think you're talking about alternative energy sources when you say 'advanced technology?'

If so, onshore solar and wind generation is now competitive with fossil fuels and is preferred in many areas for new projects (not existing infrastructure where energy plants are paid for and a sunk cost).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/domini...ost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#37627f7b4ff2

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

https://about.bnef.com/blog/tumbling-costs-wind-solar-batteries-squeezing-fossil-fuels/

"Taking India as an example, BNEF is now showing benchmark LCOEs for onshore wind of just $39 per MWh, down 46% on a year ago, and for solar PV at $41, down 45%. By comparison, coal comes in at $68 per MWh, and combined-cycle gas at $93."

And the costs for wind and solar have been falling rather aggressively.

So when it's cheaper than fossil fuels is it still 'alternative energy?'

There is a ton of money to be made in 'alternative energy' industries just as there's a ton of money to be made in the fossil fuels industries.

 

[Richard Cranium]

 

[Slap Stick]

The "probability" of climate change being man made winds up in the certainty of taxes which benefit a select few.
And does nothing to fix anything.

 

[WileERobby]

Photosynthesis. Trees eat carbon dioxide. Prevent humans from producing carbon dioxide. Starve the trees.

 

[Slap Stick]

The questions being asked simple. Are we in a period when climate is changing? And have humans played a role in this change? The reason we are interested in these questions is because the first could have an impact on the quality of life in the future (good or bad) and the second is most likely because if humans play a role then decisions can be made about whether to try to change this role. I only say most likely because there could be someone who doesn't care about the role of humans for human's sake, but just considers humans to be a variable.

Here we see presented a number of arguments that say the answers to these questions are inherently unknowable (because we cannot put the world in a lab, because the records are incomplete, because the system is complex), some arguments that say why worry (conditions have been this way in the geologic past) and some arguments that advocate killing off of those that disagree. I'll ignore the last two because they don't address the questions.

I think we all agree that there are 'yes' or 'no' answers to the two questions. So the question is really whether we can provide a 'yes' or 'no' answer, or instead, whether we can provide a probability other than 50%/50% for whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no'. Framed this way, we can then work toward evaluating the observations we have using what we know about physics and chemistry, possibly biology and geology, to determine whether it is probably that there is change or not, and whether the things we know humans have done (clearing forests, growing rice, building drag strips and parking lots and cities, changing the amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, in the environment, and so forth) are sufficient to account for part of all of this change. All we are talking about is the probability of change. Not the absolute whether it happened or not. All I have said is that a lot of very smart people (I am not suggesting you are not smart) who use an approach that is driven by the evidence and the information on physics and chemistry, have converged on a similar conclusion. That the available data very very strongly suggests climate is changing and that the understanding of the way climate operates and the changes humans have made to the environment strongly suggests a role for humans.

No one says climate isn't changing. We are saying Man isn't causing it. Before you start stealing money from us to give to someone else we want it proved we are the cause.
We were taught climate has made wild swings 9ver this rock's existence and Man wasn't present. So what did? We didn't do it then so why is it people think we are now?
Follow the money.

 

[Jcharger]

I said nothing about money. I just stated that the question boils down to probability of humans being a factor. The basis for determining this probability is be independent of the cost or of the nature of the decision we may face. I also think that climate change is probably a few steps down on the list of natural things for us to be concerned about.

 

[Slap Stick]

You never said anything about money but that is what drives all this.
The advocates know they can't prove its being caused by Man but they dredge up all this manufactured data and present it as fact when its nowhere near such.
They have no proof yet won't admit it but still keep beating their drums waiting for the govt mandates to fleece the taxpayers.
Take carbon credits. Who sells them and what do they do to prevent pollution?

 

[Brandy]

My wife noticed that it is going to be 46* here today. For one day...….She blamed "Global Warming". This is the kind of thinking that is out there. I just shook my head.

 

[Dipstick]

Photosynthesis. Trees eat carbon dioxide.

Except they're disappearing due to commodity-driven deforestation.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Except they're disappearing due to commodity-driven deforestation.

Here in the US, there really are more trees today than there were 100-200 years ago. Ever wonder why there are all stone walls in the middle of the woods? When the glaciers retreated, the entire northern half of the country was nothing but dirt, rocks and lakes. Then grass grew. Then trees grew. Then farmers came in and cleared all the stones out of the fields to grow their crops. While clearing the fields, they made boundary walls out of all the stones they cleared. When the farmers stopped farming, Mother Nature reclaimed all those fields and trees grew, and continue to grow, but the farmer's 100-200+ year old stone walls remain.



https://www.wideopenspaces.com/trees-america-100-years-ago/

 

[Brandy]

Here in the US, there really are more trees today than there were 100-200 years ago. Ever wonder why there are all stone walls in the middle of the woods? When the glaciers retreated, the entire northern half of the country was nothing but dirt, rocks and lakes. Then grass grew. Then trees grew. Then farmers came in and cleared all the stones out of the fields to grow their crops. While clearing the fields, they made boundary walls out of all the stones they cleared. When the farmers stopped farming, Mother Nature reclaimed all those fields and trees grew, and continue to grow, but the farmer's 100-200+ year old stone walls remain.



https://www.wideopenspaces.com/trees-america-100-years-ago/

Those walls are everywhere up here. Miles and miles of 'em.

 

[Slap Stick]

This is considered solar radiation management (SRM) and it is a well studied concept. Spray some stuff in the upper atmosphere to block the inbound sunlight to offset the warming caused by CO2.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

Okay...is there proof CO2 is causing anything?
And...ya ever watch the weather and hear the weather Injuns say when we lose the cloud cover the temp will drop?
Btw spraying stuff in the air is nothing new. The Navy and Air Force has held patents on spraying chemicals to alter the weather since the 70s.
Look up most any day. See those white streaks across the sky that expand until the sky is obscured?

 

[funknut]

My wife noticed that it is going to be 46* here today. For one day...….She blamed "Global Warming". This is the kind of thinking that is out there. I just shook my head.

This is the same thinking that people use when they say 'look, lots of snow this year! Global warming (climate change) is a hoax!'

We all know that you can't look at localized information and extrapolate to the general problem, but local events are what drive emotional responses. If you live in California and you see record droughts, your house gets wiped out by fires, etc. of course it's going to seem like climate change is real.

We all know that we should find a trusted source or sources to examine the problem scientifically. But it's the emotional responses that drive decision-making. Should I trust this research, or that research? Is that research financially or politically motivated? Etc., etc.

Using the cigarette industry as a comparison, how many years did it take before the public believed the science that overwhelmingly proved cigarettes were extremely damaging?

Tobacco companies lobbied hard, did their own questionable research, and claimed in court that even though it was scientifically shown that pregnant smokers had smaller babies with increased health risks, that 'maybe some mothers want smaller babies.' They were economically motivated to protect their markets.

How long did it take to convince people how harmful 2nd hand smoke is?

How many people, at this point, dispute that cigarettes are terrible for health?

It takes time to convince people of things they 'know' to be true. The research will continue, and at some point it will overwhelmingly convince people that whichever conclusion they come to (whether man-made global warming is a thing or not) will be generally accepted.

I see lots of posts saying 'there's money in forcing people to move to alternative energy, all the climate change research is economically motivated!' No doubt there is money in any industry, including solar and wind.

There's also a bunch of money in the oil and gas (and coal to a lesser degree) industries to maintain the status quo and keep people burning fossil fuels for energy, so any research to the contrary could also be economically motivated. We have seen oil and gas companies lobby against and influence fuel economy standards.