[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

India and China are your measure of good science and decision making???

I don't know how those countries feel about CO2 in particular but they have a very poor track record on environmental issues. I'm sure there was no consideration given to climate change and pollution when they made the decision to increase coal consumption.

They increased coal production for the same reason we did, to reduce the cost of industrial development. That justification, which we also did, is changing almost daily with solar now close to or less expensive than fossil fuels in many locations. Wind power is also becoming competitive.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

Please provide source data for the 99% value.

Sorry, my bad, I meant peer-review papers written by people who actually work in that field that tries to understand the long-term climate as opposed to people whose career to trying to predict tomorrow's weather.

[URL="https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed."

[sounding]

Yes, they know and understand climate science -- CO2 is not a pollutant. They, like NASA, also know that CO2 is plant food and is helping to green the earth -- and more CO2 would be beneficial.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

Ditto. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) did a member survey in 2016. Results show that 67% believe climate change is mostly human-caused -- but -- only 53% of members responded. Since responses where not secret and since most members directly or indirectly work for government (such as academic government funding), many did not respond. Personal contact with some National Weather Service members confirms this.

This is from their website. Keep in mind that personal opinions are not peer-reviewed.

Climate Intervention - American Meteorological Society

"Adopted by the AMS Council on 2 February 2022
It is now well established that global average surface temperatures are increasing, and the associated changes in climate are causing ecological and societal disruptions. Further, there is overwhelming evidence that climate change in recent decades is caused by human activities. Greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, have already contributed and will continue to contribute to widespread climate changes, with major negative consequences for most humans and ecosystems. "

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by biker1

There is no 99% or even 97%. That number gets tossed around from a much criticized paper by John Cook, IIRC. The question being asked is not what you think and the manipulation of the numbers to achieve the oft quoted percentage is laughable. Those who break out that number are typically clueless. Human activities have been altering the climate for a long time. You need to look no further than the urban heat island effect. There are, however, two actually important questions to ask: How much of recent temperature increases are anthropogenic and are we facing a dire situation in the future? The answer to both questions is "we don't know". Increasing CO2 does yield temperature increases because it changes the radiative transfer balance in the atmosphere. By itself, however, this is not enough to create the catastrophic effects that some claim are just around the corner. There would need to be positive feedbacks in the atmospheric/oceanic system from CO2 related temperature increases in order to create a dire situation. These are the types of climate dynamics that are not well understood and therefore difficult to numerically model. The catastrophic predictions for the future are based on numerical modeling. This is still an area of research. We are about 12,000 years into an interglacial period and temperature and sea levels can be expected to continue to rise. Anthropogenic warming is likely to be a positive perturbation on this trend.

Full disclosure: I am a retired research meteorologist who developed numerical atmospheric models for NASA and the National Weather Service.

Or deforestation of the flyover states for plantation of corn and soybeans.

[sounding]

It is competitive -- but only on windy days -- but not on very cold days as some of their produced energy is needed to heat the turbines oils, etc.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Remember the days when LA was covered by a yellow smog, Pittsburgh a smoky haze as did numerous other US cities. Thanks to a massive program to reduce contaminants, these cities and others have helped clean up the air. So what has happened to temperatures? They have gone up according to the "stewards" . So if that happened here, and we encourage, help other countries do the same, what results might we expect? I am not a scientist, but my thoughts would suggest some more warming. Why? Perhaps clearer skies allow more heat absorption. Less reflection of the Sun's rays.

An example of global temperature impact by air pollution is the 1883 explosion of Krakatau volcano in what is now Indonesia. Not a huge Volcano in height but an extremely large emission of airborne pollutants. Reportedly impacted global temperature by about 1 degree F for 5 years.

The earth has undergone glacial and interglacial cycles forever. Some suggest every 100,000 years, Mostly glacial 90000 years vs 10000 years interglacial. We are interglacial now. Perhaps the cause is something out of our control. Like tilt of the earth? Higher tilt, higher temperatures. Something out of human control. Some say Milankovitch cycles. Beyond me.

So, some speculate that global warming is not caused by use of fossil fuels. You should not assume that we all understand and agree with your stewardship comment.
Lots of theories and unanswered questions.

Not saying clean air is bad for our health, but not a sure case to claim that we will solve global warning by improving carbon footprint.

As with so many posts on here, the last sentence implies that anyone is suggesting a silver bullet.

The people that have spent their lives studying climate have said (99.9% of peer-reviewed papers) that human actions are contributing to climate change. It is also commonly agreed by them that we have passed the "tipping point" meaning the climate will continue to change at ever-increasing rates (positive feedback).

What they do say, is that it is too late to "solve" the problem, at this point the best we can do is help reduce the rate of change - reduce the problem. And reducing the carbon footprint is just one of many recommendations. Saying reducing carbon won't solve the problem is an over simplification of the recommendations being made.

[mtdjed]

"More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

That shows that whoever created these scientific papers are clueless to a 99.9% certainty. That would imply that climate change has only occurred since humans were around and more specifically since they began using fossil fuels to a great extent.

Statements like this are the reason why there is widespread disbelief in "these government trolls and politicians" trying to institute their beliefs as fact.

[sounding]

The problem is there is no proof humans cause climate change -- only pollution. The science world is full of sky-is-falling rhetoric throughout history -- just like the next ice age scare in the 70s.

[biker1]

Yes, absolutely. There are a lot of examples of anthropogenic changes. We should try to tread lightly when we can. Fortunately, the atmospheric/oceanic system has negative feedbacks. A very simple example of a negative feedback would be if the atmosphere warmed then it could hold more water vapor which could result in more clouds but the clouds would reflect more sunlight, but the clouds can also radiate more long wave radiation back to earth. These are the sorts of things that are numerically modeled. It is very non-linear. The difference between the atmosphere warming and cooling is a difference of a few watts per square meter in the radiation budget and the solar constant is about 1300 watts per square meter. We are essentially looking at the small difference between two large numbers which is why the modeling is difficult and still an area of research.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Or deforestation of the flyover states for plantation of corn and soybeans.

[sounding]

Our climate is wonderful. Golfing, cruising, beaching, pickle-balling, swimming, surfing, sailing, fishing, sunning, etc, etc, etc. Also wonderful is all those movie stars and politicians with beachfront properties who really enjoy our wonderful climate. They know a good thing when they see it.

[sounding]

Correct. Increasing CO2, in addition to very tiny (non-tangible) warming effects, is also cooling the earth. 1. It is cooling the upper air faster than we ever thought possible. 2. A warmer earth means the atmosphere's ability to make clouds increases, which mostly help to reflect sunlight and thus cause cooling. 3. Increasing CO2 enables plants to grow with less need for water, which is why deserts are unexpectedly greening -- and more plants means a cooler earth surface.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by sounding

It is competitive -- but only on windy days -- but not on very cold days as some of their produced energy is needed to heat the turbines oils, etc.

So the argument commonly used, if it isn't perfect it doesn't work.

We will never get off fossil fuels if we don't start. All over the world alternative energy production is proving to be viable. Here it is an uphill war. A way with know side effects - like climate change. I notice you ignore my link to the people YOU referenced, where they state clearly that climate change is real and climate change is aggravated by human activity.

Defintion of pollution: "Pollution is the introduction of harmful materials into the environment. These harmful materials are called pollutants. Pollutants can be natural, such as volcanic ash. They can also be created by human activity, such as trash or runoff produced by factories. Pollutants damage the quality of air, water, and land."

Please note that the definition does not exclude the possibility to a positive effect. It is anything introduced into an environment that causes harmful effects. So CO2 IS pollution. It's climate heating effect (harmful levels cause harmful heating) is KNOWN and PROVEN.

[sounding]

The smart countries, like China and India, are not only increasing fossil fuels use, but also increasing nuclear energies. This is partially due to the last 6 years -- which a shows a slight global cooling trend. CO2 is obviously underperforming.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by Ritagoyer

Our air is cleaner now than it was in the 60s. To clean the air up you will need to get China,Russia,India and some of South America to do something about their air quality. When you get that to happen then we can talk.

Yet the USA is still the second biggest emitter of CO2 behind China.
Air must have been bad back in 60's.

"I loved the smell of lead in the mornings"!