[biker1]

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.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

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?

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Velvet

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.

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

[Velvet]

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.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by biker1

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 temperature 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. This is still an area of research. 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.

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.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.

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

several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

And from Scientific American

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

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.

[davefin]

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!

[Velvet]

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.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

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.

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.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

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.

[Velvet]

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....

[Ben Franklin]

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

[manaboutown]

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

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

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, 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?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Velvet

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....

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.

[Number 10 GI]

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.