Climate change, global warming discussion

[Tadayoshi]

Dear future generation,

We had fun, you guys get the short end of the stick.

Sincerely,

Best Generation

Oh and those wonderful things you got in your childhood won't help you now. I don't think an iPhone 6S will help save the planet...

[Guest loppez]

My letter:

 

Well dear grandchildren, you know what our grandparents told us? Well they told us "When we were young, we took responsibility for our actions". Guess you guys will have a counter-argument to that...

omg

 

 

1958 - 1962 (i might be wrong about dates, not sure) soviets and usa conducted nuclear explosions on the ionosphere. one of the biggest was in 1962, 400km above Pacific ocean, result - aurora borealis that could be seen across the Pacific Ocean lol

 

every single rocket makes a hole in the ozone layer. one, single rocket saturn V in 1975 - 1500km of the ozone layer gone. 

now try to imagine how they damaged the atmosphere if in 1980 - 1990 thousands rockets were launched.

what about nasa space shuttle program. it last years. everytime a space shuttle was launched - 200 tons of chlorine stayed in the atmosphere.

 

 

now you are telling me, that i am a threat to our climat? because what? i forgot to turn off my computer? i use coal to heat my house? lol give me a break.

 

even after that all nuclear tests, i am not sure if the global warming is a fact. ice cap is bigger than in the last years.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/

 

if somebody thinks that all green and pure energy gibberish is not about money... well that person is an idiot and should go to hell. 

 

climate taxes. somebody has to pay for that, right? i might be wrong but i think that money goes to some guys, and i think they are kind of happy because of that. in the meantime others make money on green technology, which is far more expensive than older technology (hello mr steven spinner).

[cryofrzd]

Well, of course there are people/organisations trying to score as much money as they can from the climate change. I don't know for sure about the climate change, but it seems to change differently in different areas, here we get warmer winters, some areas get higher annual perception etc.

 

However I take this at ease, the ecosystem has always been changing and I don't think humans will destroy it by some centigrades. But we should reduce CO2 emissions for our own health (look at China) however I won't go militant about it because I know increased travel is needed for the economy to grow.

[sanahtlig]

even after that all nuclear tests, i am not sure if the global warming is a fact. ice cap is bigger than in the last years.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/

The ice cap cycles over periods of about 9 years.  I would take care before trusting the analyses of some random conservative blogger.  What you're looking for is peer-reviewed research done by experts without partisan leanings or conflicts of interest.

 

NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

 

A new NASA study revealed that the oldest and thickest Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a faster rate than the younger and thinner ice at the edges of the Arctic Ocean’s floating ice cap.

The thicker ice, known as multi-year ice, survives through the cyclical summer melt season, when young ice that has formed over winter just as quickly melts again. The rapid disappearance of older ice makes Arctic sea ice even more vulnerable to further decline in the summer, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., and author of the study, which was recently published in Journal of Climate.

 

The new research takes a closer look at how multi-year ice, ice that has made it through at least two summers, has diminished with each passing winter over the last three decades. Multi-year ice "extent" – which includes all areas of the Arctic Ocean where multi-year ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface – is diminishing at a rate of -15.1 percent per decade, the study found.

 

 

This interactive illustrates how perennial sea ice has declined from 1980 to 2012.

 

The takehome point here is that the ice caps are melting in such a way that they're unlikely to recover to previous levels as they have in the past.  That's not good.

 

Ice cap dynamics are complex.  Sea level analyses are more straightforward.  NASA puts this in further perspective.

 

The climate change debate isn't about the individual.  It's about public policy.  You can't rely on individuals to live in a sustainable fashion--individuals have little or no incentive to live sustainably.  You have to set up a framework that penalizes unsustainable practices and rewards sustainable practices to reliably alter behavior at a societal level.  Ozone depletion has only tangental relevance to the climate change debate (ozone depletion is actually thought to have a cooling effect).  If anything, the ozone issue shows how public policy initiatives successfully stabilized the situation, though it may be difficult to undo the damage already done.

[Kanpachi]

Absolute proof.

[Kaguya]

Absolute proof.

Okay, global warming proved, everyone can go home now

[Flutterz]

Welp, /thread, see you all in the next one!

[sanahtlig]

A recent study polled climate scientists to determine the consensus on climate change.

 

 

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

 

62.7% of climate scientists believed in human-caused global warming.  35.5% expressed no opinion.  1.8% rejected human-caused global warming.  Confirmation of global warming was defined as agreeing with the following statement: "Humans are the primary cause of recent global warming".

 

Scientific consensus is there.  The public seems to be more ambivalent.  Interestingly, the divide is mostly along party lines--almost as if one's political ideology influenced one's willingness to accept the science!  The author of the NASA article has the following to say:

 

 

people accept, or reject, new information mostly on the basis of their pre-existing knowledge and beliefs. So merely telling the average citizen that 97 percent of climate scientists believe that humans are causing climate change isn’t likely to change many minds about the issue.

 

And that's really a takehome point I think.  In general, once people have established a set of beliefs about a topic, they're unlikely to change their minds no matter what evidence you give them.  People see what they want to see, and believe what is convenient for them to believe.  And that doesn't just apply to the climate change debate.

[cryofrzd]

That the concentration of greenhouse gases (gases that absorb warmth) contributes to the climate for Earth, is simple physics. Without any greenhouse gases at all the temperatures would be much lower than today.

 

However like in media, they say everything with a correlation to the rising temperature is "caused by the global warming". Correlation ≠ cause, effect. For example there's a correlation between the length of pupils' feet and the pupils' grades in school.

 

You can guess what will be falsely proven in the newspaper when they discover the correlation between the number of [insert some species] and increased temperature.

 

This abuse of statistics is also why the dietary advices change every season btw.

[Bolverk]

When you are asked on your opinion one questions such as this. You are really doomed either way imo. You got a truckload of data which can be view in multiple directions. What to discard, what is vaild, what is unconnected. You got media saying different things all over the place for different reasons. In a case like that it's better to form an opinion from the basics of the data. Read the offical climate report and other documents, newspapers and such. an Ofc I would normally applaud that, because then you are forming your own reasoning and opinion.

 

But on the other hand. To get an accurate image I would have to read a lot and cross-referanse many different opinions. I am better at analyzing the global warming than a bunch of dedicated scientists? I can't acutally honestly say that I am. Espessially in the case when such a majority of scientists seems to think there is a human connection to the climate change, It's better to agree with the scientists. Media seems to portray it as there is a large amount of disagreement between scientists. But as sanahtlig mentioned there really isin't.

 

 

One of the best arguments I've heard against global warming is: No no man! it's all an goverment conspiracy!

Damn man, did you just counter a crazy theory with another crazy theory? Brilliant, I see what you did there.

[Beato]

Even if global warming wasn't true the currently used fossil fuels have so many other negative effects that phasing them out is still preferable. Which is why global warning "sceptics" confuse me so much. What's wrong with having several alternatives instead of just one? Oil is going to get too expensive soner or later, no matter if it's after 50 years or 500 years. We'll need alternatives no matter what. Cars that run on electricity, cars that run on hydrogen, maybe even cars that run on CO2! Though not just cars of course.

 

There is so much cool stuff that's being researched on and invented with the goal of being enviromentally friendly. Why wouldn't you want any of them?

[sanahtlig]

When you are asked on your opinion one questions such as this. You are really doomed either way imo. You got a truckload of data which can be view in multiple directions. What to discard, what is vaild, what is unconnected. You got media saying different things all over the place for different reasons.

To oppose change, you don't need to convince people of your position.  You simply need to cast uncertainty on the other position, whether it be through valid arguments or simple disinformation campaigns.  Confusion tactics are a standard ploy used by those who would preserve the status quo.  To avoid falling into this deliberate trap and getting lost in the din of voices, you have to choose the voices you pay attention to very carefully--in other words, gauge the credibility of your sources and ignore all but the most credible ones.

[Guest loppez]

The ice cap cycles over periods of about 9 years.  I would take care before trusting the analyses of some random conservative blogger.  What you're looking for is peer-reviewed research done by experts without partisan leanings or conflicts of interest.

 

NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

 

 

 

 

The takehome point here is that the ice caps are melting in such a way that they're unlikely to recover to previous levels as they have in the past.  That's not good.

 

Ice cap dynamics are complex.  Sea level analyses are more straightforward.  NASA puts this in further perspective.

 

The climate change debate isn't about the individual.  It's about public policy.  You can't rely on individuals to live in a sustainable fashion--individuals have little or no incentive to live sustainably.  You have to set up a framework that penalizes unsustainable practices and rewards sustainable practices to reliably alter behavior at a societal level.  Ozone depletion has only tangental relevance to the climate change debate (ozone depletion is actually thought to have a cooling effect).  If anything, the ozone issue shows how public policy initiatives successfully stabilized the situation, though it may be difficult to undo the damage already done.

9 years is nothing but ok. your link contains years up to 2012. 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/#.UvPi4_l5Mbs

 

in 2013 ice cap is bigger than last years.

 

but even if this is true, even if global worming is true. one guy, who just live has almost no impact on the climat. i already mentioned how nuclear shit and rockets work. 

 

without that if you look at longer part of time then 20 years, before people started all that shit you can see: 

 

- That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.

- That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.

 

 

money money money money

[Bolverk]

To oppose change, you don't need to convince people of your position.  You simply need to cast uncertainty on the other position, whether it be through valid arguments or simple disinformation campaigns.  Confusion tactics are a standard ploy used by those who would preserve the status quo.  To avoid falling into this deliberate trap and getting lost in the din of voices, you have to choose the voices you pay attention to very carefully--in other words, gauge the credibility of your sources and ignore all but the most credible ones.

That is indeed the case how usually politics and media goes around with their business. Never really thought about it in that way before.

 

/RantOn

Is falling lost into the din of voices even wrong?

Depending on your current views and previous exeriences you might choose a uncredible source. The easiest choice seem to find data that fits your current view and disregard mostly everything else. Everyone does this in my opinion to some degree, you can't possibly view everything equally. Stereotypes for example, you see a person and automatically view that person with some criterias. Or this is an expenisve brand, then their products must be better than the cheaper ones. That person with glasses looks smart, she/he must be good at school, etc

This is simply a way to cope with way too much information.

 

A possible way a person who gets informed about the Global warming might think: The global warming is not real, even if it is. There is close to zero for a single person like me can do. Either way I haven't noticed much difference in my environment the last years so I'll ignore it.

 

To be able to get close to the truth, you would have to open yourself up. Look at the different opinions as you said sanahtlig and without much bias. Then you will be able to form an more objective opinion. Doing this is harder than it might sound like. Not because reading and looking up stuff is hard. But because it might collide with your beliefs of the world. How you view the world so to speak. Let's say you were an aspiring athelte and want to become pro and you don't have much previous knownledge on the subject. You research and find out that regardless how much effort you put in, your genes will play a large part if you want to become the best in the world. You feel devastated, now what are you supposed to do? Reject the gene factor? Or accept it? Both decisions will change how your eyes will view the world. Big changes to how you view the world is not something you can change easily.

 

 

All that being said, I do believe it would be best if everyone could strive to doubt opinions and theories by looking at their grounding, and looking for the answer ourselves.

 

/RantOff

[sanahtlig]

 

9 years is nothing but ok. your link contains years up to 2012. 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-in-2013-is-sixth-lowest-on-record/#.UvPi4_l5Mbs

 

in 2013 ice cap is bigger than last years.

 

 

From the same link:

The 2013 summertime minimum extent is in line with the long-term downward trend of about 12 percent per decade since the late 1970s, a decline that has accelerated after 2007. This year’s rebound from 2012 does not disagree with this downward trend and is not a surprise to scientists.

9-year-cycle.  1 year is just a blip.

 

but even if this is true, even if global worming is true. one guy, who just live has almost no impact on the climat. i already mentioned how nuclear shit and rockets work.

As I said before, this isn't about individuals.  It's a public policy issue.

 

- That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.

- That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.

I'll respond as I did before:

I would take care before trusting the analyses of some random conservative blogger.  What you're looking for is peer-reviewed research done by experts without partisan leanings or conflicts of interest.

[sanahtlig]

Is falling lost into the din of voices even wrong?

Yes, if it prevents you from coming to a coherent conclusion about an important topic.  Being openminded does not mean considering every viewpoint or piece of information equally.  It merely means examining the evidence without bias and a willingness to consider evidence and viewpoints that contradict your own--and change one's stance accordingly when necessary.

 

Just two days ago I looked at a graph of sea levels in the past 10 millennia and wondered if the changes that have occurred in the past 2 centuries even mattered in historical perspective.  Then I read further and realized that these changes are happening in what was a period of equilibrium, a period of unusual stability.  Our civilization depends on a stable climate.  The world will go on whatever we do to it.  The same can't be said for our current civilization.  It doesn't matter all that much in the big scheme of things if water levels rise a bit and the coastal landscape changes ever so slightly.  But people care when their homes get flooded and swept away in the process.  People care when droughts devastate harvests that people in the region were relying on to just to survive.

 

Climate change is bad--no matter which direction it goes.  If we can prevent it, fine.  If not, we better understand how it works so we're prepared for the consequences.  The scary thing is: we barely understand the climate changes we're causing at all.  Our models suck at predicting even short-term changes.  We can see changes happening, but as for the future?  Anyone's guess.  Humanity's Grand Experiment: just how far can we push the Earth until dramatic change occurs?  The results will be interesting for sure.  But is this an experiment we want to be conducting?

[Guest loppez]

From the same link:

 

 

9-year-cycle.  1 year is just a blip.

 

 

I would take care before trusting the analyses of some random conservative blogger.  What you're looking for is peer-reviewed research done by experts without partisan leanings or conflicts of interest.

how could you talk about 9 year climat cycle based on 20-30 years? ofc that one year different than "9 year cycle" (within that big 20 years period) is not important. yee. how convinient to take 20 years i like, leave the rest and come up with magic cycle.

 

about random conservative blogger.

 

he has posted official data collected by DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute). now take a look at those data and tell me that this two sentences are wrong:

  -That sea ice data has declined strongly even in the recent past before human CO2 outlet.

  -That Sea ice from a level not far from the 2006 level has recovered very fast 1938-1946.

 

there are not. it's a fact.

 

still i will undersatnd if you don't take those DMI data as reliable. there are not from nasa, right?

[cryofrzd]

It'll get quite messy when the organic gases bound in the tundra will be set free in the air. Then we'll have an automatic increase of greenhouse gases without any "direct contributions" by ourselves...

[Clephas]

I live in Texas, max temperature experienced this past summer, 119 Fahrenheit.  Global warming exists. 

[Guest hairybumslapper]

Where i live, each summer feels hotter than the last, and it sometimes gets humid even in winter.

[Clephas]

Also, considering how consistently we've been getting bad weather, droughts, and other weather problems in the last half decade or so both here and across the US, it is fairly obvious that things are beginning to fall into the models of climate change.   Heck, when I first moved to Austin, the lakes were full, we had rain during the summer regularly enough to keep us out of drought conditions, and there was no such a thing as rice farmers arguing with the river authority over water rights. 

 

Also, the Inuits in Alaska and their vanishing islands.

[sanahtlig]

 

still i will undersatnd if you don't take those DMI data as reliable. there are not from nasa, right?

 

If you'll review my statement, it's not the data I called into question.  It's the analysis by said conservative blogger.  Proper data analysis requires expert knowledge of how the data was collected and the experience to place these data in proper context.  Contrary to popular belief, data does not speak for itself.  Proper analysis of this dataset may or may not show that your claims are correct.

 

But even if such analyses did show what you claim, that doesn't necessarily support your implicit claim: that recent changes in the cryosphere are natural, temporary, and will quickly revert in the near future irrespective of human activity.  Nor would it support your main argument: that the scientific consensus for climate change is a manufactured conspiracy intended to redirect money for the profit of some unspecified group.

 

 

 

how convinient to take 20 years i like, leave the rest and come up with magic cycle.

I'll just leave this here.

 

 

 

 

Reliable and consistent records for all seasons are only available during the satellite era, from 1979 onwards.

 

Scientists use the 1981 to 2010 average because it provides a consistent baseline for year-to-year comparisons of sea ice extent. Thirty years is considered a standard baseline period for weather and climate, and the satellite record is now long enough to provide a thirty-year baseline period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice

[sanahtlig]

The U.S. has released an updated National Climate Change Assessment: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview

 

It's a comprehensive synthesis of the science intended for public consumption, broken up into sections for easy browsing.  This could be the biggest push yet to educate the public about the dangers of climate change.

[Nagisa_Fawkes]

[Bolverk]