Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

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.

That said, we cut down great swaths of rainforest, even though scientists back in the 80's, some 40 years ago, warned that it would bring grave danger. I guess people forgot about that one too.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I don't think they are.  There's a fallacy wherein people simultaneously say that predictions are wrong, then only quote the outside of the range.

2) If it's weather, then low and high temperature records should be set at the same rate.  Do you think that increased temperatures aren't happening ?  

In regards to 1, your earlier comment that there's a wide range of predictions indicates otherwise. So which is it?

2) Unseasonably cold here in eastern ON. As it was last spring.

[OftenWrong]

6 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

I'm not sure which climate scientists would have made that claim.  The effects are already noticeable to anyone with an open mind

 

Ahh backsliding, thy name is liberal. But what if I don't WANT to have an open mind, because this is about science, not belief.

 

Quote

melting arctic ice, massive increase in the intensity of wild fires in North America, temperature warming.  It's happening, now, not in 200 years. 

It's been my understanding that what is happening now is not it yet. Forest fires happen all the time, for various reasons. But what is happening is a spreading sense of climate fear, such that almost any bad weather is now being held up as an example of the impending "climate emergency".

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

About what?

BC couldn't be bothered reading back, and I wasn't going to explain it to him, so I'm damned if I'm going to explain it to you.  Especially not after you compared me to Trudeau. 

I mean, bloody hell!  Some things are a bit beyond the pale...

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That said, we cut down great swaths of rainforest, even though scientists back in the 80's, some 40 years ago, warned that it would bring grave danger. I guess people forgot about that one too.

Same thing, I guess.  No immediate effect, so we'll worry about it later.

At least trees grow back though, if you let them.

[bush_cheney2004]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

BC couldn't be bothered reading back, and I wasn't going to explain it to him, so I'm damned if I'm going to explain it to you.  Especially not after you compared me to Trudeau. 

I mean, bloody hell!  Some things are a bit beyond the pale...

 

It still remains unclear....are you espousing some moral or emotional appeal to "do the right thing" ?

Why ?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The stubborn pigheaded bastards would sooner watch it all burn.

Nonsense, we don't want it all to burn... just your part.

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

BC couldn't be bothered reading back, and I wasn't going to explain it to him, so I'm damned if I'm going to explain it to you. 

I read back and whatever your beef is with BC it wasn't about anything you and I were discussing.

Quote

 

Especially not after you compared me to Trudeau. 

I mean, bloody hell!  Some things are a bit beyond the pale...

 

Compare your situation with you and BC and myself in this thread to Trudeau with the public. You both seem to be presenting some sort of position on preventing and causing climate change at the same time.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Nonsense, we don't want it all to burn... just your part.

We'll just adapt and migrate to your part.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1) your earlier comment that there's a wide range of predictions indicates otherwise. So which is it?

2) Unseasonably cold here in eastern ON. As it was last spring.

1) Yes there's a range but you can't quote the outside limit as being the only correct value predicted.  

2) Here:

So far 2019 has set 35 records for heat and 2 for cold

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2192369-so-far-2019-has-set-35-records-for-heat-and-2-for-cold/

In the past 365 days in the U.S. there were 1.48 high temperature records set for every 1 low temperature record set

https://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

https://skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-lows.html

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

 

[OftenWrong]

Come on, good records only go back about 100 - 150 years. You are being conned if you think this is it.

[Zeitgeist]

I hope everyone at least agrees that global warming is real and we have to do something about it.   I hope everyone also recognizes that the burden must be shared.  Canada and a handful of Europeans cutting emissions will be completely offset by rises in emissions in China and the developing world.  All G20 countries should be on board with fighting climate change.  Setting reasonable policy that incentivizes reducing emissions makes sense, but only inasmuch as such policies don’t reduce people’s net incomes in a significant way.  

Canada is mostly a resource based economy with major oil reserves.  Only fools would shut down our oil production just to watch the same volumes of oil produced elsewhere to meet world demand.  You want to cut emissions?  Curtail demand, and not just in a few small countries.  Adding to energy costs in Canada makes us uncompetitive unless our competitors take similar actions to reduce emissions.  

A modest cap and trade plan combined with a focus on energy efficiency and alternatives is about as much as we can afford in Canada unless our competitors adopt the same costly policies that we do.  The truth is that if all emissions stopped today worldwide, an impossibility, global warming would continue for a long time.  We are going to have to adapt.  The real questions to consider are, What is the cost of adaptation without cutting emissions?   How much do we focus on paying for adaptation versus paying to reduce emissions?  Do we have contingency plans based on external geopolitical conditions beyond our control, such as other countries’ climate change policies, mass migrations, disaster relief costs, etc.?  

The problem I have with a lot of the comments on here is that those who wish to fight climate change through measures such as the carbon tax won’t admit that it really won’t change much apart from raising the cost of living for Canadians.  We can keep such measures in place if people think they’re a step in the right direction, albeit a small one, but let’s not kid ourselves about the impacts.

On the other hand ignoring or denying climate change and not bothering to set wise policy to curb it is irresponsible.  Part of the reason Canada needs a domestic climate change policy is to give us credibility when we ask other countries to implement such policies.  Without global action we’ll get nowhere.  Part of Canada’s work is international lobbying. We’ve done it successfully before to fight apartheid, CHC’s, mismanagement of the Suez Canal, landmines, and more.  

Edited May 26, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I hope everyone at least agrees that global warming is real and we have to do something about it.   I hope everyone also recognizes that the burden must be shared.  Canada and a handful of Europeans cutting emissions will be completely offset by rises in emissions in China and the developing world.

That's why we have to scale back dealing with China and the developing world. Everyone should have been making more headway by now.

[Zeitgeist]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's why we have to scale back dealing with China and the developing world. Everyone should have been making more headway by now.

Yup, allowing trading partners to have low labour standards (wages, working conditions) and low environmental standards is a massive hidden tax that we all pay because of the impact on climate change and the loss of decent paying manufacturing jobs due to offshoring.  Trump should rebrand his tariffs “the bad actor penalty”.  The left would support that and it actually gives countries a clear escape route from tariffs.  Fix your energy production and labour conditions, driving up your production costs to a level that prevents a massive trade imbalance and offshoring of our jobs, and the penalty is reduced or eliminated entirely.  This is the work that the WTO and UN have been unable to do.  I’d also add some minimum rule of law and human rights standards, so that China can’t arbitrarily detain and execute people, at least not if they want us to buy their goods.  I think Canada and Europe would be on board for that.  

Edited May 26, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Come on, good records only go back about 100 - 150 years. You are being conned if you think this is it.

You don't think 100-150 years is enough to establish a trend ?

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't think 100-150 years is enough to establish a trend ?

Yes, a summation of the data over 150 years says something about climate.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

These are the data points for min-max. Each data point is a finite slice of weather, while the whole of this data might be summed to produce one data-point called "climate". Now to talk about climate change you must compare that with samples of a similar size. However the accuracy of the data going back centuries is another question, especially, min-max data in a given year.

So all you can say for now about the data on the right is, there has been a spate of rising temperatures, several years of warm weather. This might be a trend but it's also possible that we may have a round of cool weather. Climate models show that the effects of global warming will not become significant for about 100 years, and will continue worsening over the next few centuries, so statistically this is what should happen.

There is a tendency to hype up any bad weather event as effects of global warming. Also certain municipalities are taking the "progressive" step of declaring an official "Climate Emergency" when there is no emergency at all in that city or region. Weather's absolutely fine. These statements are purely political and should not be using the declaration of "emergency" frivolously.

 

https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/city-council-declares-climate-emergency-in-kingston

 

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by OftenWrong

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

These are the data points for min-max. Each data point is a finite slice of weather, while the whole of this data might be summed to produce one data-point called "climate". Now to talk about climate change you must compare that with samples of a similar size. However the accuracy of the data going back centuries is another question, especially, min-max data in a given year.

So all you can say for now about the data on the right is, there has been a spate of rising temperatures, several years of warm weather. This might be a trend but it's also possible that we may have a round of cool weather. Climate models show that the effects of global warming will not become significant for about 100 years, and will continue worsening over the next few centuries, so statistically this is what should happen.

There is a tendency to hype up any bad weather event as effects of global warming. Also certain municipalities are taking the "progressive" step of declaring an official "Climate Emergency" when there is no emergency at all in that city or region. Weather's absolutely fine. These statements are purely political and should not be using the declaration of "emergency" frivolously.

 

https://www.thewhig.com/news/local-news/city-council-declares-climate-emergency-in-kingston

 

 

Get back to us when the vast VAST majority of scientists that say otherwise review, turn their thinking around and share your conclusions.

You'll very likely be awarded a Nobel Prize and have schools named in your honor.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It still remains unclear....are you espousing some moral or emotional appeal to "do the right thing" ?

Why ?

I'm saying there's absolutely no chance that of that happening.  There would be nothing moral, or emotional about it.  Like not stepping in front of a moving train, it would be purely practical.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I read back and whatever your beef is with BC it wasn't about anything you and I were discussing.

Compare your situation with you and BC and myself in this thread to Trudeau with the public. You both seem to be presenting some sort of position on preventing and causing climate change at the same time.

Yes it was.  BC was responding to a post where I had responded to one that quoted you quoting me.  It sounds complicated but at the time it seemed reasonable.

There's only one way to prevent (any more past about fifty years from now) climate change, (if you discount the miraculous invention of a cold fusion generator for the moment) and that is to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Which is the cause.   As that is not going to happen, why ruin our economy for nothing?  We are going to need it to make sure we are well armed when they come for our water.

Edited May 26, 2019 by bcsapper

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Get back to us when the vast VAST majority of scientists that say otherwise review, turn their thinking around and share your conclusions.

You'll very likely be awarded a Nobel Prize and have schools named in your honor.

This is math now, not everyone's forte. Stick to counting fish

[Shady]

13 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

And drugs?  Good drugs?

I'll bet all those scientists who wasted their time on degrees and research are gonna feel pretty silly when they realize that all they need is logic and reason. 

I’m not sure what you mean.  So you don’t think technology will advance far enough in the coming decades?  You think fossil fuels are going to be as important in say 2050 as they are now?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Shady said:

I’m not sure what you mean.  So you don’t think technology will advance far enough in the coming decades?  You think fossil fuels are going to be as important in say 2050 as they are now?

Technology will no doubt advance as you say.  Hydrocarbons are a finite resource and it is a given that eventually humans will outgrow them.  It's only a matter of what happens first.

There could be a major breakthrough in carbon capture technology announced tomorrow that will reduce greenhouse gas levels and eventually reverse the effects.  Or not, and China could build its planned 300 coal fired plants and the effects will get worse.  If I was a betting man I'd go with the latter.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 

So all you can say for now about the data on the right is, there has been a spate of rising temperatures, several years of warm weather. This might be a trend but it's also possible that we may have a round of cool weather. 

Of course it's possible.  But given that we know that the greenhouse effect is real, and the potential risk why would we wait?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

This is math now, not everyone's forte. Stick to counting fish

Actually it's arithmetic. Math is more concerned with theory. Scientists who agree with the theorizing around climate change especially when it comes to the need for action vastly outnumber those who don't.

You need to focus more on the definition of the terms and words you try to communicate with. As has been said many times, words matter. Perhaps not to you but that's forte for you.

Edited May 26, 2019 by eyeball