[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Randyj66

Ok, so we dedicate the rest of our lives to attempt to correct a problem that some feel exists, but in reality we forget 2 major things!
1. The earth is round and spins on its axis.

Uh, what has this to do with anything?

]

2. The Earth just like every other planet out there is magnetically attracted to the sun.!

Uh, seriously? Is this intended to be sarcasm? I guess it is a magnetism that keeps you from flying off the planet into space also?


Do you have a degree in climatology? If so, from where and how long have you practiced in the field? If not, why do you feel comfortable drawing conclusions about what might or might not happen?

Oh, that's right, magnetism keeps the earth in orbit. ahem...

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by rsibole

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

Lol!

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Don't forget the humorous aspect.

One winter in the 1990s I was living in Duluth, MN. It gets cold there but not as bad as the rest of the state because of the moderating effect of Lake Superior. One morning I woke up to a howling windstorm. Local radio reported that the temp. was something like -35 but with the wind the windchill was approaching -115 fahrenheit. North of us was even worse. The actual temperature (not windchill) in a small town about 100 miles north of Duluth was -60, which I believe is the record for the lowest temperature ever recorded in Minnesota.

It was so cold up there that they had to call off the scheduled annual conference on--you guessed it--global warming!

Climatologists never use anecdotal evidence to prove the theory. PERIOD. So, whoever, or where ever you heard that was caused by climate change was just wrong in saying it.

And if your intent is to say that climate change is not happening, well, you are as wrong as the people using the recent hurricane as proof it is. The recent hurricane may have been affected or may not have been, but it was not CAUSED by it.

[MrLonzo]

There's a great book on this subject called "Unsettled" by Steven Koonin. Climate change modeling is based on statistical modeling. Statistical models are found by fitting the data and are not exact. They are based on certain assumptions which may or may not be true. The underlying data may or may not be accurate. The historical data are mostly obtained from extrapolations and imprecise measurements. The conclusions are stated as fact even in light of all these uncertainties. Koonin shines a light on the whole process which has become politicized simply because very few voters are scientists and people are easily swayed using emotional arguments.

[Ptmckiou]

Originally Posted by rsibole

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.


Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.


Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2 , 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by lpkruege1

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Oh, really? You need to link that study because I also saw a segment on the Weather Channel that stated the reverse, that in the last five years, 6 of the most powerful hurricanes on record have occurred. According to the information that I have read, it's NOT THAT THERE ARE MORE hurricanes because of the warming, but that they are MORE SEVERE. So, perhaps you don't have your facts correct.

Below is a link to a recent article testifying to this:

Is climate change making hurricanes worse? | The Economist

We need to corroborate our facts in these debates to ensure we didn't misunderstand our facts. If you can point to the study you indicated, it would be good to do. I could google it myself, but better that you do.

Also, nothing I ever read said that the Ice Age destroyed the dinosaurs. It was a collision with a comet or asteroid. Science is never settled, but it is a means to approach the truth with "a priori" evidence. It certainly is more accurate than someone spouting an idea that supports some profit-making enterprise that has no basis in science.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. Measuring CO2 in ice cores, the planet had a predictable rate in its changes (yes there are measurable natural climate cycles). However, since the time of the industrial revolution that timeline has drastically sped up. Mankind has influenced thr planets once steady natural cycles. If you would like to use common sense instead of science data, it too leads you to the same conclusion. Of course man influences the earth. Did you ever see pictures of Los Angeles in the 1930’s? You can’t see one block down the roads because smog is so thick due to fossil burning fuels. I remember seeing it coming in for a landing at the airport in the ‘70’s. Terrible. Since California passed hard restrictions on particulate’s on vehicles and other sources, they don’t have smog days anymore. The aide is clear and smog alerts are no more, Human beings polluting the earth in whatever capacity always needs to be addressed. We should always look to bettering our environment. That is common sense. However, will we get there? Doubtful. Not because it’s not possible. Our society can’t make changes when profits are more important. Fossil fuel industry doesn’t want to lose its profits (and subsidies), and keep giving huge donations to politicians which then make voting decisions based on money, not science, and definitely not common sense.

Couldn't have said it better.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Bobendres

I don’t believe it’s settled science. There are many scientists who dispute the notion that mankind has an effect on climate. Unfortunately - the topic is a third rail - which prevents an honest and apolitical discussion on it. For example - being labeled a climate change denier. Always a label

"Settled" is normally applied to law, and Facts and Theories are applied to Science. The only thing in science that could be termed "settled" are facts. And there are very few FACTs in science.

Climate change is a theory. Theories do not claim to be facts they claim to predict things based on evidence. The predictions are not necessarily 100% accurate, in fact, they most likely are not. But they are accurate enough to be used. Nuclear bombs are based on theories, not facts. The theory works well enough in predicting what will happen that they tend to go off with a big bang; the electricity that runs powers your lights, powers EVs, etc., etc., are all based on theory, not facts. We do not KNOW that there is anything called an Electron - but the theory that defines electrons works well enough to be used - daily by everyone.

The range in science is a hypothesis, theory, and fact. A hypothesis is just a little more than an idea, a guess at what might be causing something. You then test the hypothesis with experiments or data collection and analysis and see if it is matched the guess. If enough matches or enough results are predicted correctly, it is elevated to theory. When a theory is ALWAYS correct in predicting results and accurately explains the results, it is then elevated to FACT.

If the Climat change THEORY were accurate enough to predict with 100% accuracy, it would not be theory, Because it does not even claim to be fact, that means there can be other theories that attempt to explain what is happening"

Therefore, by the very nature of being a theory, the certainly will be other scientists that disagree with it; that is exactly how science works. "

Sometimes a very small number of scientists (maybe even one) come up with a better theory, and the scientific community disagrees with them. When this happens, it is up to the Scientist that disagrees with the generally accepted theory to prove it WRONG or to prove their theory is more accurate. If they manage to do either, the scientific community will eventually accept their new theory.

So far, the "scientists" that disagree with the Climate Change theory have neither proven it wrong nor provided an alternative theory. They have simply stated they don't believe it.

On the other hand, between 80% and 90% of the scientists In the entire world, not just the US, believe the theory works and is a valid theory,

The FACT that the theory is accepted around the world and not just in the US makes it hard for me to believe this is political - well, except here in the US, where we make anything scientific into a political issue.

I apologize for being long-winded; I know the desired post here is short - preferably one-liners - and should be entirely based on COMMON SENSE.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Ptmckiou

The whole point of science is also to measure the data. .

I will not debate the rest of your post or agree with it - because I don't believe I am smart enough to do it and I do not have a degree in Climatology.

But, I do challenge your opening statement. The WHOLE point of science is to understand HOW things work so that the understanding can be used to control/improve our lives. gathering data is certainly a part of learning to understand. ASnd using that data to create Theories of how things work is a part and running experiments to verify that the theory works is part

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Unfortunately, "energy independence" and "political ambitions" can be at odds with one another. After all, 3 years ago we were energy independent. Then the winds changed and we decided to follow a green agenda. So now we need to import oil once again.

I disagree that we were ever energy-independent. And even if, for some brief moment in time, it did happen, it doesn't matter Also, energy is a broader field than just oil, but you seem to be using it to define independence.

Oil is a global market if we try to be independent - apart from the global economy - the first step would be for the government to take control of the oil companies and not permit them to sell oil on the global market since they would then sell ALL their oil on the global market where they could charge more and make more money. Having read your posts, I believe you are a capitalist who disagrees with socialism, where the government controls the companies/production.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I disagree that we were ever energy-independent. And even if, for some brief moment in time, it did happen, it doesn't matter Also, energy is a broader field than just oil, but you seem to be using it to define independence.

Oil is a global market if we try to be independent - apart from the global economy - the first step would be for the government to take control of the oil companies and not permit them to sell oil on the global market since they would then sell ALL their oil on the global market where they could charge more and make more money. Having read your posts, I believe you are a capitalist who disagrees with socialism, where the government controls the companies/production.

On a net net basis we have been energy independent. Imports were more than balanced out by exports so in a crisis we would have had enough energy to have normal economic activity.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think the climate change deniers are terrified. They're afraid of so many things.

#1 - they're afraid that they're wrong. That's the big one.
#2 - they're afraid that they might have to make changes to the way they live. Even small changes fly in the face of the "my freedoms" mentality.
#3 - they're afraid to accept that the human species is destructive to the planet, because it means they have to accept that they are, deep in the core of their very existence, innately flawed. Not just "incorrect about this topic" or "wrong about a calculation or a left turn." But flawed, from within their DNA. The entire species - including their spouses and children, parents and best friends. All flawed, incapable of evolving if they continue to insist on denying it.
#4 - they're afraid of progress. The unknown. That which is not fully in their control. They're not control freaks, but they fear "other." Anything that doesn't jibe with their vision of existence - is dangerous or scary.

In order to combat all these things they go on the defensive. But it's a lazy defense. It's a cop-out. They mock, they poke fun, they deny. "I saw on the internet that climate change is a hoax, so I can relax now and not worry about it." "I saw this guy who says he's a scientist insist that humans have nothing to do with climate change, so I'll just point at him whenever it comes up in conversation." "I saw this elected official make fun of scientists who show the data, and I like this elected official, so I will choose to blindly agree with whatever he says because the truth requires more effort on my part."

When someone pushes back and says "no seriously - there's a problem, and it can't be "solved" but it CAN be addressed and you can help" - well they've already denied there's a problem. So they double down and get angry.

So where are we with climate change?

We're with a planet that is dying - which is what planets do. It's dying at a rate faster than it would die, had the human species not evolved to the Age of Agriculture, the Industrial Revolution, or the Age of Technology. If humans had not meddled with nature and instead, lived WITH it - the planet would not be at the stage of decay it is currently.

It will absolutely become a dead planet. All planets eventually die. But the more we meddle with it, the quicker that death comes. No amount of denying that will negate the fact. We can accept it and NOT do anything about it. We can accept it and DO something about it. We can accept it and try to destroy it even faster than we already are.

But it's happening, and we are absolutely contributing to it.

[babcab22]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

I think this topic is very important and should not be categorized as political. The problem is that there are those who have made it political. It affects us all, as we can see with the latest hurricane, which caused so much damage and flooding because according to the experts contained more water and flooding effects because of global warming.

What almost everyone seems to forget is the cost of trying to "cure" Climate Change. I heard a presentation on You Tube( I believe it was Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher), who stated that to lower CO2 levels by even 15 points, a trillion dollars would have to be spent. He also stated that we might have to spend a quadrillion dollars or more(more than the GDP of the entire Earth) to attempt to "fix" it. As for me, I am not interested in repealing the Industrial Revolution.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by babcab22

What almost everyone seems to forget is the cost of trying to "cure" Climate Change. I heard a presentation on You Tube( I believe it was Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher), who stated that to lower CO2 levels by even 15 points, a trillion dollars would have to be spent. He also stated that we might have to spend a quadrillion dollars or more(more than the GDP of the entire Earth) to attempt to "fix" it. As for me, I am not interested in repealing the Industrial Revolution.

We can't fix it. We can slow it down. And it's not just CO2 levels creating the problem. Nitpicking a singular "thing" and taking it out of context, then magnifying it and claiming "this is too much we can't do it at all" is a denial tactic.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by lpkruege1

Thank God we have climate change. At one point in time Wisconsin was covered in glaciers. The ice age destroyed the dinosaurs. Good thing it warmed up. Man really thinks he has a lot more influence on the earth's temperature than he does. A study recently came out from NOAA that showed we are in a period of fewer severe hurricanes. Another study came out indicating the earth's orbit and tilt on our axes has more to do with our temperature. I guess it's not settled science yet.

Chicxulub meteor killed the donosaurs, not "the" ice age , of which there have been several.