A Balanced View of Climate Change

[Robert W]

Do I scare you enough for you to take some action? Would you try to get cars with the best possible mileage. Could you ride a bike when you can. Would you be willing to conserve energy at home and at work (though I suspect you're retired).

Yes, they do. I get my ideas from the work of thousands of scientists from all over the world. There are a few scientists that reject AGW, but they are less than 1% of the total number of scientists. Science treats the greenhouse effect as an established fact. The greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmopshere are responsible for 59 Fahrenheit degrees of waming. You don't think a 50% increase in the second most effective GHG might have a discernible effect?

In 1850 there were only 280 Pennies. They've increased by 50%. So, whatever effect they produce will have increased as well. There are lots of compounds that will kill you with a tiny fraction of the current level of CO2. There's more than enough there for all the plants and phytoplankton on the entire planet to thrive. Robert, you don't seem to bring a lot of science knowledge to the table here. Trying to show me that 420 ppm is a small fraction serves no point other than to demonstrate your technical shortcomings. I'm a degreed engineer. I know what ppm stands for. I also know physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. You, apparently, do not.

I am on my final car to own. I do not plan to change a thing.
I am pleased to learn you are an engineer of some kind. Why do so many climate scientists agree with me, change that to I agree with them, and do not agree with your doom claims?

Tell me if this is reasonable.

When man controls Tornados, then it is time to tell me he can control climate.

I agree that those who have no physics education or chemistry education and also thermodynamics should stay out and shut up. But too many of them talk as you talk.

Take the exceptional climate scientist Richard Lindzen, he does not agree with you. And were this very serious, he definitely would side with you. I have communicated with him and I have no doubt he is involved in this and is widely respected.

 

[Robert W]

I bet the guy who stops you from stepping in front of a bus scares you. Or your wife warning you that someone's pulling out in front of you. Do you think they shouldn't have said what they said to you because it scared you? I'm trying to convince people that something bad is happening and it requires that we take some action; that we make some different choices.

Do I scare you enough for you to take some action? Would you try to get cars with the best possible mileage? Could you ride a bike when you can? Would you be willing to conserve energy at home and at work (though I suspect you're retired)?

I can confirm there is a bus. This is silly for me to address since I have not ridden a bus in many many decades. I have had 2 wives. Both are dead. I was long divorced when that happened to them.

I am going to relate it to my actual life.

I read stuff posted on this forum.
Holy cow do I read stuff. It ranges from jokes to pure crap and a bit of fact.
This is the real world I speak of.

I will sum this up as I personally see this.
You claim it is a severe problem.

Can you answer some civil questions? Since it is you that is very frightened.

1. Can you show me where man has managed climate?
2. Are you aware of the 6 or so elements that cause climate?
3. Which of the 6 or so do you believe man can manage?
4. Can man put a stop to tornados? How about hurricanes?
5. All you talk about is temperature.

Can man make clouds? Can he place clouds where they are needed?

 

[Crick]

Can you answer some civil questions? Since it is you that is very frightened.

1. Can you show me where man has managed climate?

Man has never "managed" the climate.

MANAGE: be in charge of

2. Are you aware of the 6 or so elements that cause climate?

I find that question nonsensical. Can you reword it?

3. Which of the 6 or so do you believe man can manage?

N/A

4. Can man put a stop to tornados? How about hurricanes?

Not at present. But we can stop emitting CO2.

5. All you talk about is temperature.

I have also talked about the acidification of the ocean, rising sea levels, melting ice, loss of albedo, impacts on weather, crops, wildlife.

Can man make clouds? Can he place clouds where they are needed?

Clouds may be seeded to induce them to precipitate. Clouds get made every day by jet contrails and I imagine it would be fairly simple - but expensive - to make a full-up cloud.

So, what do you think you're demonstrating with these questions? That man could not be causing the planet to warm? Just since 1965, humans have burned the equivalent of 137 trillion, 455 billion, 500 million cubic feet of natural gas in coal, natural gas and petroleum liquids. A trillion here, a trillion there and eventually you're talking about some significant effects.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The OP is correct that we should be finding ways to adapt to a massive increase in our species and promoting economic growth and opportunity for all instead of trying to move the needle back to the pre-industrial age. That won't happen. And we will do far more harm trying than just accepting that things could be slightly warmer in year 2200.

https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf

.

Still awaiting clarity on adapting to what, who/what must adapt and what that adapting entails.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still awaiting clarity on adapting to what, who/what must adapt and what that adapting entails.

If the world is warming we will have to adapt to that. Everyone will have to adapt to that. Maybe we will need more air conditioning in places that previously didn't need it. An expanding world will need more potable water and we should adapt as Israel has to practical and cost efficient ways to turn ocean waters into potable water. We may need to grow different crops in different areas.

We should continue to study our world and all that we can know about it of course. But as the OP offers, most of our time and energy should be spent in learning how a fast expanding population can prosper and have quality of life in a somewhat warmer world instead of impossibly costly and probably ineffective mandates that will almost certainly reduce that prosperity and quality of life for many if not most.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

If the world is warming we will have to adapt to that. Everyone will have to adapt to that. Maybe we will need more air conditioning in places that previously didn't need it. An expanding world will need more potable water and we should adapt as Israel has to practical and cost efficient ways to turn ocean waters into potable water. We may need to grow different crops in different areas.

We should continue to study our world and all that we can know about it of course. But as the OP offers, most of our time and energy should be spent in learning how a fast expanding population can prosper and have quality of life in a somewhat warmer world instead of impossibly costly and probably ineffective mandates that will almost certainly reduce that prosperity and quality of life for many if not most.

People need more air conditioning, food and water. Tunnel vision.

 

[Foxfyre]

People need more air conditioning, food and water.

Some do indeed. Not all. But if the left has its way and manages to implement its agenda on climate change, a whole bunch more people are going to need the basic necessities of life. As the OP says, the more prosperity there is, the more people can manage what they have to deal with. Making the world poorer, which the left will surely do if they are allowed, is a sure recipe for more misery, hunger, illness, need.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Some do indeed. Not all. But if the left has its way and manages to implement its agenda on climate change, a whole bunch more people are going to need the basic necessities of life. As the OP says, the more prosperity there is, the more people can manage what they have to deal with. Making the world poorer, which the left will surely do if they are allowed, is a sure recipe for more misery, hunger, illness, need.

The fundamental issue you have and the OP has is that it focuses solely on people. It's too hot outdoors for people? They just move inside. Too hot inside? Just use air conditioning. What if you're not a person? A crop that cannot move, a species on which humanity depends that cannot move or adapt?

 

[Foxfyre]

The fundamental issue you have and the OP has is that it focuses solely on people. It's too hot outdoors for people? They just move inside. Too hot inside? Just use air conditioning. What if you're not a person? A crop that cannot move, a species on which humanity depends that cannot move or adapt?

The crop is doing fine right now. The crop is for one season only. Maybe different crops will be needed in different areas in the future. That has frequently been the case throughout all of human history. Climate changes. It always has. And the flora and fauna on the planet have either gone away or adapted to the changing conditions.

The OP is a completely common sense approach to the issue. Meanwhile ALL the most draconian efforts of humankind--all the solar fields, all the wind farms, all the nuclear power, all the mandates put on the appliances we use, etc. etc. etc. have not changed the climate one whit.

Let's do what actually helps instead of what is most likely going to cause immense harm.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

The crop is doing fine right now. The crop is for one season only. Maybe different crops will be needed in different areas in the future. That has frequently been the case throughout all of human history. Climate changes. It always has. And the flora and fauna on the planet have either gone away or adapted to the changing conditions.

The OP is a completely common sense approach to the issue. Meanwhile ALL the most draconian efforts of humankind--all the solar fields, all the wind farms, all the nuclear power, all the mandates put on the appliances we use, etc. etc. etc. have not changed the climate one whit.

Let's do what actually helps instead of what is most likely going to cause immense harm.

All this is saying we have no idea what we are getting into with no plan an assuming it will all magically work out. It's completely self-centered and divorced from the totally of the biosphere.

The biosphere cannot quickly tech its way out of sudden changes. Adaptation in the natural world is an exceedingly long process and nowhere comparable to someone going down to their local Home Depot to put in a window mounted air conditioner. Humanity has lost sight of the one world it inhabits. This nonchalant attitude as to 'well, that species or crop we depend upon did not adapt and we now live in a world of increasing scarcity, no biggie economically' really says it all.

 

[Robert W]

If the world is warming we will have to adapt to that. Everyone will have to adapt to that. Maybe we will need more air conditioning in places that previously didn't need it. An expanding world will need more potable water and we should adapt as Israel has to practical and cost efficient ways to turn ocean waters into potable water. We may need to grow different crops in different areas.

We should continue to study our world and all that we can know about it of course. But as the OP offers, most of our time and energy should be spent in learning how a fast expanding population can prosper and have quality of life in a somewhat warmer world instead of impossibly costly and probably ineffective mandates that will almost certainly reduce that prosperity and quality of life for many if not most.

Their issue is climate. Climate is not temperature. Temperature is a minor factor. But when I researched what universities teach is climate, I found 6 elements and other sites say a couple more. Mountains, oceans, clouds, spin of Earth are some of the elements. To claim they can fix climate attacking Carbon Dioxide is crazy talk. Controlling cutting down forests is a way to deal with this by much more control over cutting. Americans are not in a good position to demand India stop cutting down trees as one example.

When one opens up Climate change using google, first thing they discuss is fossil fuels. They escape why climate has always changed. People see powerful winds happen and don't realize I guess that this is normal. And to put all the blame on fossil fuels is nuts.

 

[Crick]

Their issue is climate. Climate is not temperature. Temperature is a minor factor.

That is incorrect. Temperature is a major factor.

But when I researched what universities teach is climate, I found 6 elements and other sites say a couple more. Mountains, oceans, clouds, spin of Earth are some of the elements. To claim they can fix climate attacking Carbon Dioxide is crazy talk.

Robert, you're the one putting out crazy talk. The CO2 humans have added to the atmosphere has caused the planet to warm and the ocean's pH to drop. That is having effects on lots of critical ecological systems on which our health and well-being depend. The ONLY thing us alarmists are trying to get people to do is reduce and eventually eliminate GHG emissions, primarily CO2. We are not demanding that anyone control the climate. We are not demanding that anyone manage it. We are not claiming that we or anyone else can even do those things.

Controlling cutting down forests is a way to deal with this by much more control over cutting. Americans are not in a good position to demand India stop cutting down trees as one example.

When did America (the government?) demand that India stop cutting down trees?

When one opens up Climate change using google, first thing they discuss is fossil fuels. They escape why climate has always changed.

If the sun's output were constant and the planet had no tectonic motion, no Milankovitch forcings and the major chemical cycles were stable, the Earth's climate would NOT change. But those things change and thus the climate changes in response - in response to external forcing. The CO2 that humans have added is another external forcing. It, along with some feedback mechanisms, has been completely sufficient to have caused the warming we have observed.

And to put all the blame on fossil fuels is nuts.

Your arguments attempting to convince us that fossil fuels are NOT responsible... are nuts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Their issue is climate. Climate is not temperature. Temperature is a minor factor. But when I researched what universities teach is climate, I found 6 elements and other sites say a couple more. Mountains, oceans, clouds, spin of Earth are some of the elements. To claim they can fix climate attacking Carbon Dioxide is crazy talk. Controlling cutting down forests is a way to deal with this by much more control over cutting. Americans are not in a good position to demand India stop cutting down trees as one example.

When one opens up Climate change using google, first thing they discuss is fossil fuels. They escape why climate has always changed. People see powerful winds happen and don't realize I guess that this is normal. And to put all the blame on fossil fuels is nuts.

I don't KNOW what difference using fossil fuels makes whether by cavemen burning wood once they figured out how or burning coal or using petroleum products. But I do know those with sufficient food, housing, other basic needs are far more likely to care about the environment and aesthetics than those who struggle just to survive.

And I know that most of the 8 billion people on Earth--there were 1 billion at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution--have no alternative to using fossil fuels to maintain a reasonable quality of life.

I do know that however much so-called 'green energy' has been put into use has made no measurable difference in climate change and there is no evidence that I've seen that eliminating fossil fuels will make any significant difference in climate change.

I do know humankind has come up with products and services necessary for a reasonable quality of life every time that has become necessary. It is not yet necessary to eliminate fossil fuels. The source I used in the OP makes more sense to me than anything any 'scientist' has come up with yet.

 

[Foxfyre]

All this is saying we have no idea what we are getting into with no plan an assuming it will all magically work out. It's completely self-centered and divorced from the totally of the biosphere.

The biosphere cannot quickly tech its way out of sudden changes. Adaptation in the natural world is an exceedingly long process and nowhere comparable to someone going down to their local Home Depot to put in a window mounted air conditioner. Humanity has lost sight of the one world it inhabits. This nonchalant attitude as to 'well, that species or crop we depend upon did not adapt and we now live in a world of increasing scarcity, no biggie economically' really says it all.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I do know that humankind by looking to its own self-interests has vastly improved both societies and quality of life for most. There is no reason to believe that will not continue.

 

[Robert W]

I don't KNOW what difference using fossil fuels makes whether by cavemen burning wood once they figured out how or burning coal or using petroleum products. But I do know those with sufficient food, housing, other basic needs are far more likely to care about the environment and aesthetics than those who struggle just to survive.

And I know that most of the 8 billion people on Earth--there were 1 billion at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution--have no alternative to using fossil fuels to maintain a reasonable quality of life.

I do know that however much so-called 'green energy' has been put into use has made no measurable difference in climate change and there is no evidence that I've seen that eliminating fossil fuels will make any significant difference in climate change.

I do know humankind has come up with products and services necessary for a reasonable quality of life every time that has become necessary. It is not yet necessary to eliminate fossil fuels. The source I used in the OP makes more sense to me than anything any 'scientist' has come up with yet.

What you say is excellent. What I said was as well. But they are raising hell about a small amount of temperature which is a joke.

 

[Robert W]

I have no idea what you mean by that. I do know that humankind by looking to its own self-interests has vastly improved both societies and quality of life for most. There is no reason to believe that will not continue.

If we are run by Democrats, the shit hits the fan.

 

[Robert W]

Check this out for climate education. Back it up a bit to get to the front.
This discussion tells about being members of societies who allow managers to report but shut down the members. And he brings climate into it.

 

[Crick]

Check this out for climate education. Back it up a bit to get to the front.
This discussion tells about being members of societies who allow managers to report but shut down the members. And he brings climate into it.

Robert, do you believe environmentalism is an evil movement? Do you believe environmentalism is causing immense damage?

 

[Robert W]

Robert, do you believe environmentalism is an evil movement? Do you believe environmentalism is causing immense damage?

I believe that humans should keep great care of the environment. I think it depends on what is spent as to damage. For example if the Feds stop oil, the damage will be immense.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

What you say is excellent. What I said was as well. But they are raising hell about a small amount of temperature which is a joke.

For example, it is just a small temperature fluctuation between having hurricanes or not.