Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 but only because the effects are happening.

I remember reading information from climate scientists that said the effects would not be that noticeable for about 100-200 years. Difference between climate and bad weather.

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I remember reading information from climate scientists that said the effects would not be that noticeable for about 100-200 years. Difference between climate and bad weather.

There's a range of predictions - from wild-eyed disaster happening now to marginal effects.  But temperature records are being broken at a higher rate, and consistently...

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The evidence of that science is that those things work.  People are slowly coming around on Climate Change but only because the effects are happening.

 

There has simply been to much effort put into denying reality on ideological grounds. Admitting the people who came around long ago are were correct will just be to difficult a challenge to overcome, evidence be damned.  

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) There's a range of predictions - from wild-eyed disaster happening now to marginal effects. 

2) But temperature records are being broken at a higher rate, and consistently...

1) It does not inspire peoples confidence if the "range of predictions" is too great. One might also visit a psychic to get predictions.

2) Blip in the graph. Weather. Climate is measured over longer data sample.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1) It does not inspire peoples confidence if the "range of predictions" is too great. One might also visit a psychic to get predictions.

2) Blip in the graph. Weather. Climate is measured over longer data sample.

Over reliance on unreliable models has always been a huge problem when it comes to getting people to agree on AGW.  People tend to roll their eyes and think about other problems when they see the Himalayan Glaciers are actually still there, and Miami is still above sea level.

That said, regardless of all the effort, all the windmills and the solar panels, the pipeline protestors and the irritating Scandinavian schoolchildren, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise and there will be an accounting, at some point.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Over reliance on unreliable models has always been a huge problem when it comes to getting people to agree on AGW.  People tend to roll their eyes and think about other problems when they see the Himalayan Glaciers are actually still there, and Miami is still above sea level.

 

People would roll their eyes even if the models were very, very reliable.   It does not necessarily follow that most people will change or lower their standard of living to address climate change risks that will have to be adapted too anyway.   Others will actually benefit from climate change.

 

Quote

That said, regardless of all the effort, all the windmills and the solar panels, the pipeline protestors and the irritating Scandinavian schoolchildren, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise and there will be an accounting, at some point.

 

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean that humans face certain doom.   CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

People would roll their eyes even if the models were very, very reliable.   It does not necessarily follow that most people will change or lower their standard of living to address climate change risks that will have to be adapted too anyway.   Others will actually benefit from climate change.

 

 

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean that humans face certain doom.   CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.

Canada will be a beneficiary of climate change, but we’re also citizens of the world and should consider the impacts on  places like Micronesia and oceanic coastal cities.  That’s a huge disaster relief cost.  

[bush_cheney2004]

21 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada will be a beneficiary of climate change, but we’re also citizens of the world and should consider the impacts on  places like Micronesia and oceanic coastal cities.  That’s a huge disaster relief cost.  

 

Sure...then that is the price that will be paid.  

[ReeferMadness]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I remember reading information from climate scientists that said the effects would not be that noticeable for about 100-200 years. Difference between climate and bad weather.

I'm not sure which climate scientists would have made that claim.  The effects are already noticeable to anyone with an open mind - melting arctic ice, massive increase in the intensity of wild fires in North America, temperature warming.  It's happening, now, not in 200 years. 

The effects are cumulative, though, and subject to feedback effects - positive or negative.  That means climate scientists can't be certain of future impacts.

Now, for those of you who argue that uncertainty means we go right on polluting until we're certain, I say 2 things:

1. It takes time to modify the climate and will take even more time to fix it.  Waiting until we're certain is a recipe for disaster.

2. It's possible that climate scientists are being too aggressive in their climate change projections but it's more likely they're being too conservative.  Most of the potential feedback mechanisms are positive in terms of accelerating climate change and many are poorly understood (and not reflected in the models).

In the face of uncertainty, you turn to risk management techniques to manage the outcomes.  In this case, that means cutting GHG emissions.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Over reliance on unreliable models has always been a huge problem when it comes to getting people to agree on AGW.  People tend to roll their eyes and think about other problems when they see the Himalayan Glaciers are actually still there, and Miami is still above sea level.

The huge problem with accepting that climate change requires action implies admitting that lefties have been right all along.

It's like globalization in the thread on Trump's ignorance about what tariffs are, whatever it is that right wingers have against globalization it's not the same globalization left wingers have been concerned about.

Right wingers will only accept that action on climate change is necessary when they are able to demonstrate that it was right wingers who discovered the problem in the first place. Admitting they've been wrong is too great a leap and pure spite alone is good enough reason to reject any left wing solution whatsoever.  The easiest solution is to just blame the left for climate change and then take action.  If that's what it takes then so be it.

[Shady]

I just don’t see the urgency.  So climate change will lead to something like a one degree rise in the earths temperature by 2070.  If we do nothing.  Well, I highly doubt that with technology advancing the way it has over the last few decades they we’ll still be using fossil fuels in 2030 or 2040.  We won’t be.  And CO2 levels will plummet.  Problem solved.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The huge problem with accepting that climate change requires action implies admitting that lefties have been right all along.

It's like globalization in the thread on Trump's ignorance about what tariffs are, whatever it is that right wingers have against globalization it's not the same globalization left wingers have been concerned about.

Right wingers will only accept that action on climate change is necessary when they are able to demonstrate that it was right wingers who discovered the problem in the first place. Admitting they've been wrong is too great a leap and pure spite alone is good enough reason to reject any left wing solution whatsoever.  The easiest solution is to just blame the left for climate change and then take action.  If that's what it takes then so be it.

BC has had a left wing government for a while now.  Is Roberts Bank closed yet?

Meaningful action on climate change is just not very likely until it is too late.  It would take an unprecedented level of international cooperation.

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by bcsapper

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Shady said:

I just don’t see the urgency.  So climate change will lead to something like a one degree rise in the earths temperature by 2070.  If we do nothing.  Well, I highly doubt that with technology advancing the way it has over the last few decades they we’ll still be using fossil fuels in 2030 or 2040.  We won’t be.  And CO2 levels will plummet.  Problem solved.

Some people will see more urgency than others.  It's when they want what you got that the problems will occur.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

People would roll their eyes even if the models were very, very reliable.   It does not necessarily follow that most people will change or lower their standard of living to address climate change risks that will have to be adapted too anyway.   Others will actually benefit from climate change.

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean that humans face certain doom.   CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.

I suppose if the models had been reliable it would have been easier to avoid a schism, and perhaps easier to come to an agreement on a solution, but that's not guaranteed.  Everyone would have been on the same page, but some people with lung cancer still smoke, so (ooops lightning! Lightning gone, computer back on) who knows?

Edited May 25, 2019 by bcsapper

[ReeferMadness]

43 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada will be a beneficiary of climate change, but we’re also citizens of the world and should consider the impacts on  places like Micronesia and oceanic coastal cities.  That’s a huge disaster relief cost.  

The idea that Canada is going to be some sort of "beneficiary" of climate change is a stupid and dangerous notion.  As is the idea that the worst that will come of climate change is a "disaster relief" effort.

Here is a short (and partial) list of what's potentially in store for us if we don't deal with climate change:

• Reduction/loss of the pacific rain forest
• Reduction/loss of boreal forests from drought and fires
• Decline/collapse of pacific salmon stocks
• Flooding of portions of our coastal cities (notably Vancouver)
• Loss of farm productivity due to drought and flooding
• Increase in precipitation extremes leading to periods of drought and flooding
• Increase in duration and intensity of heat waves

I'm assuming you believe we will benefit due to warming of the arctic but I'm not clear what benefits you anticipate.  It's not like the arctic consists of millions of acres of prime farmland buried under snow and ice.

The most dangerously stupid idea is that Canada can somehow sit back and enjoy climate change while the rest of the world suffers.  While we are in a fortunate position compared to say, Bangladesh, we now live in a global village and global problems make themselves felt everywhere.  Again a short list of possible effects that will make themselves felt here:

• Effects on the global economy
• If there are global food shortages, it will be felt everywhere
• When effects start to become severe elsewhere, the inevitable effect is mass migration.  And the effect of mass migration is a rise of racism and racial tensions in the world, Canada included.  So look forward to white supremacy as being one of the effects of climate change.
• Southeast Asia has about half the world's population and 4 densely populated, nuclear armed countries who don't like each other very much. There are already strains in the relationships due to lack of water.  What do you think is going to happen when glaciers start to disappear?

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, ReeferMadness said:

The idea that Canada is going to be some sort of "beneficiary" of climate change is a stupid and dangerous notion.  As is the idea that the worst that will come of climate change is a "disaster relief" effort.

Here is a short (and partial) list of what's potentially in store for us if we don't deal with climate change:

• Reduction/loss of the pacific rain forest
• Reduction/loss of boreal forests from drought and fires
• Decline/collapse of pacific salmon stocks
• Flooding of portions of our coastal cities (notably Vancouver)
• Loss of farm productivity due to drought and flooding
• Increase in precipitation extremes leading to periods of drought and flooding
• Increase in duration and intensity of heat waves

I'm assuming you believe we will benefit due to warming of the arctic but I'm not clear what benefits you anticipate.  It's not like the arctic consists of millions of acres of prime farmland buried under snow and ice.

The most dangerously stupid idea is that Canada can somehow sit back and enjoy climate change while the rest of the world suffers.  While we are in a fortunate position compared to say, Bangladesh, we now live in a global village and global problems make themselves felt everywhere.  Again a short list of possible effects that will make themselves felt here:

• Effects on the global economy
• If there are global food shortages, it will be felt everywhere
• When effects start to become severe elsewhere, the inevitable effect is mass migration.  And the effect of mass migration is a rise of racism and racial tensions in the world, Canada included.  So look forward to white supremacy as being one of the effects of climate change.
• Southeast Asia has about half the world's population and 4 densely populated, nuclear armed countries who don't like each other very much. There are already strains in the relationships due to lack of water.  What do you think is going to happen when glaciers start to disappear?

 

 

Well I don’t disagree with your take on mass migration pressures. We already know the right wing response: walls, restricted and reduced immigration, and militarization.   Canada will feel the fallout from these pressures and it’s no accident why Canada is building over a dozen new coastguard ships.  Expect more militarization as many countries seek to protect their assets.  

Canada will suffer losses in terms of flooding and coastal settlement damage, but it will gain thousands of hectares of arable land as well as a Northwest Passage.  Basically the current tundra will become more accessible and liveable, which is one of the reasons we need policies to promote northern settlements.  I do think we should fight climate change sensibly without crippling our economy.   I like cap and trade.  Carbon taxes hurt poor consumers more than anyone else.  The cost of living is already too high for Millennials who are on the most part having to accept that home ownership for future generations in Canada’s largest cities is over.  

[bush_cheney2004]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I suppose if the models had been reliable it would have been easier to avoid a shism, and perhaps easier to come to an agreement on a solution, but that's not guaranteed.  Everyone would have been on the same page, but some people with lung cancer still smoke, so ooops lightning!

 

The world's total hydrocarbon economy is still growing concurrent with efforts to reduce GHG emissions.   Renewables are just another piece of the energy production and consumption pie.   Adaptation will matter a lot more than feel good attempts at putting the genie back in the bottle.

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

BC has had a left wing government for a while now.  Is Roberts Bank closed yet?

That would be Ottawa's jurisdiction.  Unlike Alberta's oil it's Canada's salmon, not BC's so we have no say in the matter.  I wish Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the same way so Alberta would separate and make it easier for us to follow suit.

Quote

Meaningful action on climate change is just not very likely until it is too late.  It would take an unprecedented level of international cooperation.

They'll all have to be right-wing nations - the right-wing simply will not abide anything less than its total domination of the issue. It has to be their issue otherwise its not even worth considering.

[Shady]

37 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Some people will see more urgency than others.  It's when they want what you got that the problems will occur.

Well, somebody has wanted what somebody else’s got since the beginning of man.  Regardless, technology will lead to a plummet of global CO2.  That’s a fact.  It will happen.  This short term nibbling at the edges of the problem will have almost no impact.  It may make people feel better though.  But that’s about it.  It’s more symbolism than anything else.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That would be Ottawa's jurisdiction.  Unlike Alberta's oil it's Canada's salmon, not BC's so we have no say in the matter.  I wish Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the same way so Alberta would separate and make it easier for us to follow suit.

They'll all have to be right-wing nations - the right-wing simply will not abide anything less than its total domination of the issue. It has to be their issue otherwise its not even worth considering.

Pipelines are federal but BC seems to find it easy to block those.  How come no-one's out lying down in front of trucks out in Tsawwassen.

I don't know which nations are right and which are left.  If you can't get China, The USA, India and the EU to work together why bother?

[eyeball]

Just now, bcsapper said:

If you can't get China, The USA, India and the EU to work together why bother?

There you go, problem solved.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Shady said:

Well, somebody has wanted what somebody else’s got since the beginning of man.  Regardless, technology will lead to a plummet of global CO2.  That’s a fact.  It will happen.  This short term nibbling at the edges of the problem will have almost no impact.  It may make people feel better though.  But that’s about it.  It’s more symbolism than anything else.

It might.  I hope so.  If it does, it might do so too late, but good for those who are left. 

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

There you go, problem solved.

Good.  I'm not sure how, but If I solved the problem, good.

Do I get a Nobel Prize?

[eyeball]

33 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Good.  I'm not sure how, but If I solved the problem, good.

I'm sure some would think so.  You solved it by dismissing it.

Quote

Do I get a Nobel Prize?

No.  But that said, the scientist that comes up with a real breakthrough that convinces the vast VAST majority of other scientist's to dismiss the need for action should probably get 10 Nobel Prizes.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm sure some would think so.  You solved it by dismissing it.

I identified it.  You dismissed it.