Are You Worried About Climate Change?
 

I am not worried about it at all. But, apparently, a lot of people claim that climate change or “global warming” will soon be killing people and may even threaten life on our planet. But, the TOTV web site actually has a “just for fun” thread making jokes about global warming. And, I don’t see very many people doing much to reduce their carbon footprint. It appears to me that people are still flying on airplanes and buying gas guzzling vehicles as much as ever. In fact, only about one in every 200 cars is an electric car, and most Villagers are buying gas golf carts. Very few people are buying solar panels, even though they are readily available in The Villages. So, have you changed your lifestyle or habits to reduce the effects of climate change?

https://twitter.com/hashtag/captians...nwater?lang=frClimate change is real Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet and many people are changing the way they pollute the earth they live on. And, many are not. I am a huge advocate of reducing plastics. Hemp can replace any plastic item from material to build homes to paper, to clothing, to biodegradable bottles, etc. Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America

We decided to move to The Villages, because of its height above sea level. Over the past 30 years, we have lived in areas of Florida that were the length of a spade shovel (not the handle, just the spade itself) above sea level to 6 feet above sea level. We got tired of having to evacuate during any hurricane that came from the south or the west (Gulf). Now we are about 95 feet above sea level. That took care of the flooding part. Now the concern is water quality. We were tired of seeing tons of dead fish, manatees, and water that you wouldn't dare go in, or drink.

Even those lifestyle changes you mention...electric vehicles, solar panels, etc., are far from proven methods to reduce climate change, contrary to what many proclaim.

The one thing constant about the climate is change.

Hate to cite science for the climate deniers but what the heck, let's see what NASA has to say.


Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Of course there is climate change, just ask the dinosaurs. The question is can human beings guide it? And if they can, to what extent?

When you compare our efforts to natural forces; tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, the sun exploding etc and... What can we do that is significantly effective, do we want stagnation? Everything like it was in the past, 50 years ago, 1000, 10,000,000? Perhaps we should consider other galaxies for the future?

So many options.

The climate has always changed..

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Is the climate changing? Of course it is because a changing climate is a constant and has been for billions of years. Are humans causing it? Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc., BUT that does not mean humans cause climate change. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.

I am all for clean air and clean water as we all should be. And certainly be a good steward of our environment in general. But to imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris. The true "science deniers" are those who insist "it's all our fault"and"we're all gonna die". They cannot answer 2 simple questions, 1. Tell me what caused the Ice Age, and 2. Explain how all the ice melted when there were only a few million humans on the planet and no industrial revolution? Many reputable climatologists believe we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, and keep in mind that before the last Ice Age, Alaska was a temperate climate akin to the Midwest.

Thank you for this excellent post!

Well stated.

I agree with Aloha1 except he contradicts himself. First paragraph: "Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc"

Second paragraph: "To imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris."

I feel that we absolutely DO have an affect on climate change. I also believe that we are not responsible for climate change. I believe in the ripple effect. We pollute the oceans with trillions of tons of garbage every year, which causes the ocean levels to rise, which causes thermal interference, which contributes to (not causes) polar ice reduction, which causes atmospheric changes, which is - climate change. That's just one thing humans do that contributes to climate change.

Does it exist? Yup, sure does. Do we contribute to the changes? Yup, you betcha. Are we "responsible" for the change? Not at all. Are there things we can do that will slow down the change, or make it less severe in our grandchildrens' lifetime? Yup. Will it stop climate change? Nope.

Evolution will continue with or without us. Our planet will slowly continue to die, as all planets do. But it's in our best interest, as a species, to at least TRY not to speed up our own extinction.

I don't think the issue is the climate "deniers" but rather at this time little is available to make a truly effective change or reverse climate change and global warming. THAT is the difference, not that people do not know that changes are occurring but that people do not see an effective answer to the problem.

Not enough to make a real dent in the problem, at this time. Enough to know that every little bit helps, the old lady said as she peed in the sea.

Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be!

Yes, China is a large polluter, but, when it comes to the rural poor (and there are so many) survival is the first thing. Keeping the earth clean is a pretty distant priority in comparison.

Come gather 'round people wherever you roam
And admit that the water around you has grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving,
then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times, they are a'changing.

There are some things we know with certainty and other things that are still being researched. We do know that we are in an interglacial period. We also know that anthropogenic CO2 increases have taken place and, from radiative transfer considerations, will contribute to some warming. We also suspect that anthropogenic CO2 increases are not, by themselves, enough to cause enough warming to be of concern. Any direct warming from anthropogenic CO2 increases must be accompanied by positive feedbacks that cause additional warming - an amplification if you will. For example, additional CO2 causes warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the air which causes additional warming since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There can also be negative feedbacks. The additional warming causes additional water vapor that results in more clouds that reflect solar radiation which can cause cooling. Of course, the clouds also intercept terrestrial radiation and reemit it back down to earth causing more warming. It's complicated. The dire forecasts you hear about come from coupled ocean/land/atmospheric models which attempt to simulate where the climate will drift to when CO2 levels are increased. Retrospective model runs have had issues with reproducing mid-tropospheric temperatures in the tropics (yes, that is important) and this raises questions about their fidelity and appropriateness as a tool for developing public policy. It is just down right difficult to model complex, non-linear interactions that are not completely understood such as cloud/radiation interactions (which are critical to getting the feedbacks correct and without positive feedbacks we probably don't have an issue).

Essentially the bottom line is we don't know how much warming will take place in the future from man's activities. With the homogenization of surface data, I have doubts whether we really know how much recent warming is the direct result of man's activities. This is still an area of research. We do know that the climate will continue to drift from natural causes such as the Milankovitch Cycles. We do know that CO2 levels will continue to increase for the next several decades as developing nations will continue to generate power from fossil fuels. Put solar panels on your house because it saves you money and makes you feel good but it won't have any impact. Whether you drive a gas or electric golf cart won't have any impact either. I do plan on buying a Tesla because they are pretty cool.

On thing that I do find rather amusing is whenever anyone says they are "trying to save the planet". The planet is fine. The human race might be another issue. If mankind goes extinct the planet will erase all remnants of the human race within a few million years.

Perhaps the communist regime just does not care.
The rise of plastic insecurity in China’s Yangtze River economic belt | GreenBiz

That too. In my experience with Communism, their main interest concerns the wealth of the party members. And the absolute control of the masses.

But China is changing, a family member was responsible for educational technical exchange between our countries at university level in certain Chinese provinces. China is showing growing pains. They are very intelligent people soon, I expect they may be leading the charge for the environment.

The high light above is a statement one will never hear from a politician or special interest group or climate change activists.

The unfortunate part of the whole subject is so much amplification
by the media of these groups positions and are presented as if we do not accept/believe/do what they are "selling"....the planet is doomed.

Centuries of climate change radical swings point to the contrary.

This is one of the many complete lies told over and over and over by the climate change deniers. I will be happy to present some pertinent citations and hope you come back with an apology for stating that your "education" makes you some kind of expert.

From the US Government

And from Scientific American
Go ahead and doubt whatever you want to doubt but please use real facts not "facts" made up by climate deniers and their media sycophants.

Google is your friend.

It's a cycle people. About 26,000 years in length. The Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age. Unfortunately, for us, there was a much, much, much smaller human population back at the end of the prior Ice Age, therefore we have no real proof what will happen, only that humans cannot control the warming trend. PERIOD!

Did the studies also consider the effect of sulphuric dioxide from the volcanoes and other gases as well? And the thermal effects of the lava? I’ve been following the latest eruption of the Kilauea volcano on the Big Island in Hawaii and the type of damage it contributed to the atmosphere.

Pollution does not equal climate change. No contradiction at all. And this planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, has seen multiple mass extinctions and continues to live. What causes the oceans to rise is water and plate tectonics , not garbage. When you figure out how to control solar output and volcanoes I'll buy in. Until then, enjoy life.

Excuse me. Just because you hold differing opinions does not give you the right to insult. My facts come from my learning and some great professors like Professor Emeritus Holman of archaeological distinction
and geology Professor Emeritus Sam Upchurch who was a "young turk" in the debate about plate tectonics. Also distinguished Astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmidt. Science, not media pablum.

Well, when you live right by a volcanoes like Hana on Maui, or Kilauea on the Big Island and you breathe in The Vog (volcanic fog) and cry and sneeze and have difficulty breathing regularly, and see the devastation and extension of the plant life killed off by sulphur dioxide, and the island reshaped by the lava. When you see the power of the earth in its original raw form, some call it the goddess Pele, then you develop a certain respect, perhaps even an understanding even if you are a scientist....

I'd rather research, and then see if we're going to do anything about it. Glad TV land is building those green houses for hydroponics.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American

A volcano erupting as Krakatoa did in 1883 will change climate dramatically for years to come.

Global climate[edit]
In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[12] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[12] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[13] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[14] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[15] but many scientists doubt that there was a causal relationship.[16]

The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[17]

Global optical effects[edit]

1888 paintings, showcasing the optical effects of the eruption on the sky over time
The 1883 Krakatoa eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets halfway around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[18] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

In 2004, an astronomer proposed the idea that the red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[19]

Weather watchers of the time tracked and mapped the effects on the sky. They labeled the phenomenon the "equatorial smoke stream".[20] This was the first identification of what is known today as the jet stream.[21]

For several years following the eruption, it was reported that the moon appeared to be blue and sometimes green. This was because some of the ash clouds were filled with particles about 1 µm wide – the right size to strongly scatter red light, while allowing other colors to pass. White moonbeams shining through the clouds emerged blue, and sometimes green. People also saw lavender suns and, for the first time, recorded noctilucent clouds.[18]
from: 1883 eruption of Krakatoa - Wikipedia

Yes, they are. And they have made HUGE concessions and improved significantly in their impact on pollution over the past decade. The USA was on its way to doing our part, until fairly recently, when most efforts were stripped of funding, and our natural parks and wildlife lost huge portions of real estate for the purpose of development.

Lots of people will be finding all kinds of wild critters in their front yards, if this continues. Those critters have to live SOMEWHERE and if you take away their homes, they'll just start parking in yours.

This is the only planet we are able to occupy right now. We lack the technology to occupy any other. It's in our best interest to take care of it. Don't worry so much about China - which has made great strides in improvement. Worry about yourself, your neighbors, your city, your state, and your country. What are YOU doing to reduce our impact on pollution and the changing climate?

Sounds a lot like Los Angeles, in the 1980's. But they didn't have the benefit of a volcano to blame their breathing problems on. It was just good old fashioned man-made pollution in the form of smog.

Have you ever heard the story about Chicken Little? As to the original question, no I have no worries of climate change. If you go back and research all the predictions of doom, gloom and death from climate change humans were supposed to be dead already. My reading has shown there have been at least 5 ice ages and the climate warmed up after each one. During many of those ice ages man didn't exist so what caused the climate change? Greenland was settled for a while by the Norsemen and the name was given to the land because it was green and fertile. Then it became colder and snow covered so the Norse fled their settlements and it is still covered with snow.

I agree that the climate is changing, as it always has and always will. Some of it is caused by man and some by other factors. The climate changed before man existed, and will change after man is gone. I also feel we should all try to do what we can to help reduce the part of the change caused by man. That being said, people need to wake up and not be sucked into so called solutions that actually don't help. Electric cars are a great example. Here are a few things the electric car industry won't tell you. The carbon footprint left behind by the mining, refinement and transportation of the materials used to make the batteries in these vehicles is very significant (even with the newer lithium batteries). Second, to make these vehicles get any range with the weight of the batteries, the rest of the vehicles have to have lots of plastic to keep the vehicle weight down. Plastic is a petroleum product that is not easily recycled, unlike the metal used in traditional vehicles that is melted down and reused. Then the batteries need to be periodically replaced, causing an ongoing cycle of the already mentioned mining, refinement and transportation process. Then the used batteries, which are basically toxic waste, need to be disposed of. And although the electric cars don't put exhaust out of a tail pipe, the batteries still need to be charged. Where do the people driving these cars think the electricity charging their batteries is coming from? It takes energy to run any car, weather it is gas or electric. Just because there is no smoke coming from the tail pipe does not mean the vehicle is not using energy. I have read some logical arguments that show electric cars are actually as bad, if not worse, for the environment. More common sense solutions, such as planning your car trips more efficiently so that you buy everything you need for a week at a time, rather than going out for a few things every other day, would actually help. Common sense things like that would really add up if everyone did it.

All cars use energy. But some are more efficient than others. For instance - there's no "need" for anyone to own a Hummer. There's no "need" for most people to own most of the gas guzzler cars on the roads these days. But the alternative to owning a gas guzzler is not electric. It's "anything less guzzling than that." Whatever that is. If you can get a car that gets 30mpg, and takes you where you need to go without actual discomfort, why would you buy a luxury boat that only gets 19mpg? Sure the efficient car is a crappy little piece of tin, but you're not living in the thing, you're just using it to get from point A to point B.

And if you are able to walk in comfort and the store is only a couple of blocks away, why are you driving to the store at all? Walk. Or take the golf cart, gas or electric, whichever. Or ride your bicycle.

Better yet - become an activist who wants to change transportation in the Villages entirely by promoting the idea of a Square to Square shuttle system. It won't eliminate cars - but it could drastically reduce their use.

Then there's the plastic bags for garbage day - you have to have "this" color bag for this kind of trash and "that" color bag for that kind of trash. So now you're just spending money to buy virgin plastics that are just being thrown away. And twice a week - convenient for the homeowner but not very convenient for the environment.

You could promote more use of solar energy. The entire town square could run entirely on solar, if someone were to develop a plan to do so. My home town's municipal buildings are all powered by solar energy.

There are SO many things that every single person can do to HELP - it's just a matter of whether or not our convenience is more important than our legacy.

The difficult part is determining which of those things actually help. Often you hear little other than opinions regarding what should be done. And those opinions rarely discuss downsides or potential unintended consequences...and all the “solutions” have them.

[QUOTE=manaboutown;1688599]Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be![/QUOTE

Top 5 most polluting countries (Google)

1. China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ...
2. United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ...
3. India (7%) ...
4. Russia (5%) ...
5 Japan (4%)

I do worry that some folks are too bullheaded to even discuss it. The climate is changing and definitely in a negative way to mankind. Why, cyclical, normal, caused by man, natural, etc. etc.. But, flat denial is shortsighted and dangerous.

Why is it the one item that will have the most positive impact to preserving the planet is not at the forefront of change. Zero population growth. Resource consumption is by far the highest contributor to carbon footprint. The energy required to make all these goods we consume blows all other contributors off the scale. So in our wisdom the answer is we must sacrifice and sacrifice must be painful - you know no pain no gain. Why not stop increasing demand and at least stay at a steady state. I'm not saying not to pursue other initiatives like lessening pollution but there is room for argument what the real impact of some of these initiatives are. Spoiler alert one volcano spruing mega ash over shadows all the polluting gasses from the worldwide car population for a long time. As an aside why do we say preserve the planet ? The planet will adapt and survive just fine short of being hit by an asteroid. It is the human race that won't survive which is inevitable anyways.

Well said, but the average person can look at an open field and surmise plenty of room for more people. The same people see snow and cannot fathom global warming.
It is very sad the comprehension of the average human dolt.

There is no question that the climate is changing - scientific data supports it. But the uniformed don't seem to grasp that the the huge problem is the rate of change. I read statistics that said the rate of climate change is something like 20 times greater than at any time in the past, and that is huge. NASA says that the change is 95% probability the result of human activity and is proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented. One example is rising sea levels. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches since 1880 with about three inches gained in the last 25 years. Clearly this has devastating impacts on coastal areas and extreme weather conditions. Scientists agree that any reduction to this rate of change can only be a positive thing, and that can be impacted by the measures we take as far as reducing pollutants, etc. We may not be able to stop the change, but we can reduce the rate of change by being politically active - contacting legislators with our concerns and voting for the candidates that will work on climate change solutions. Smart consumers recycle, drive hybrid or electric cars, use public transit, have energy efficient appliances, have solar panels on their roofs, etc. As David Suzuki said - We are all little drops in the bucket, but together the drops can fill the bucket.

Burning. We worry about auto pollution. How about the "controlled burning"? One controlled fire will pollute TVs for most of the day and do more damage than...well lots of other things.... A big burn looks like" the sky is falling".

It might keep me a bit warmer in my box 6 feet under.