Why do we battle climate change

Yet Heisenburg reportedly said that even God does not understand turbulent flow.

 

Weather is not climate. I think scientists understand this and do not try and attribute 3D weather patters in isolation rather they collect data and build trends. I think laymen often try to take isolated weather events and make arguments based on those whereas scientists look at increasing rainfall events as the atmosphere holds more moisture and the energy of the system increases.

So are you saying that the warming temperatures observed by NASA or NOAA are in error? Sure the GISS, ARGO and Satellite data has holes and gaps but a trend should still be evident if those gaps remain constant and should become more accurate the more buoys and satellite we put into the system, No? Not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to understand why you think this.

Here is the trend observed by both NASA and NOAA for the ten hottest years on record:



Here is NOAA's calculation of ocean temperatures:



So these temperature are calculated using the ARGO system even with the holes in the number of buoys, there still should be a standard baseline in termperature reading.

I'd have to see the actual records you are citing to comment but if increasing CO2 levels are from warming of the ocean and reduced solubility, what is warming the oceans in the first place to release that CO2? This would be a feedback effect rather than a primary cause would it not? All of the CO2 is not going to come out of the ocean so that is a bit of a tortured metric to discuss CO2 levels but if you look back in history to eras with large CO2 driven events such as the Permo/Triassic, you can see that feedback loops that release methane hydrates and oceanic CO2 really became a runaway train so in that sense I think you are right that solubility of the world's ocean is a factor but I think you still have to address what is causing the warming that decreases solubility rather than seeing solubility as a cause on it's own. As you said, there has to first be warming occurring in order to have warming oceans to increase CO2 release.

But as you say, sunspot activity has been decreasing for a while now yet temperatures keep increasing and have been since records have been kept keeping in mind variability in the system such as we saw in the 40's and 50's slight pause in warming and the supposed pause trend after the 1998 spike that was the hottest on record at that time and used as an endpost for graphing climate by certain blogs and websites. The actual temp. data is pretty clear despite fluctuation in sunspots over the industrial era, right? I've heard this argument that it's the sun that is responsible - a lot of it coming from Svendmark's original work. Some of it is interesting but is it based on reliable evidence? Here is a relatively recent discussion of the idea from a 2017 study:

"
Interestingly, the weak GCR‐CCN response in Gordon et al. [2017] is similar to several earlier estimates that all showed CCN changes of 1% or less to GCR cycles [Pierce and Adams, 2009; Snow‐Kropla et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2012; Dunne et al., 2012; Kazil et al., 2012; Yu and Luo, 2014]. These earlier studies used nucleation and growth schemes that did not have the benefit of being informed by the CLOUD experiments, and some of the nucleation schemes used were quite inferior to those developed by CLOUD [e.g., Pierce and Adams, 2009]. Regardless, the response in all studies has been remarkably similar. Nucleation is damped relative to changes in GCR, and CCN is damped relative to changes in nucleation; thus, the response of CCN to GCR is strongly damped (Figure 2). Thus, the exact details of nucleation rates and mechanisms were not needed to find the weak GCR‐CCN connection in earlier studies.

Does this CLOUD finding close the door on any possible GCR‐cloud‐climate connection? No, other work has suggested that cosmic rays could influence the freezing of liquid water to ice in clouds [Carslaw et al., 2002] or may influence the amount of condensable material [Svensmark et al., 2013], and other possible mechanisms might exist. However, no one has shown mechanistically that the ion‐aerosol clear‐sky mechanism is strong enough to impact clouds, and now the CLOUD team has also found this to be the case. Nonetheless, we can thank the ion‐aerosol clear‐sky hypothesis for creating the CLOUD experiment that has unlocked a treasure trove of information on nucleation, growth, and aerosols in general."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027475

Antarctica ice has not been growing in a linear fashion. It is true that East Antarctican sea ice has been measurably increasing but this could be due to a number of factors such as salinity of the coastal waters as land ice melts and glaciers decrease pumping more and more fresh water into coastal areas. As you know, less salinity means fresher water which freezes at a different rate. Changing weather patterns and an increase in precipitation could also be factors. In west Antarctica, melting is actually accelerating as discussed in this article:
"
Most scientists agree that East Antarctica—unlike its western counterpart—is gaining mass in the form of snowfall or ice, or both. But how much? And is it enough to counterbalance West Antarctica's accelerating losses? A study published in Geophysical Research Lettersin May 2017 by Alba Martin-Español of the University of Bristol in England and his colleagues suggests the gains in East Antarctica are so small that the continent is losing mass overall. This is just one in a long line of studies that disagree with rather controversial findings published in 2015 in the Journal of Glaciology, which suggested that Antarctica is gaining mass. That study sparked a dizzying debate—but one that will ultimately help glaciologists grasp just what is happening in East Antarctica and push scientists to consider how to handle contentious results in a warming world."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-in-antarctica-rsquo-s-great-ice-debate/

Hmmmmm interesting.

Agreed, whatever is the cause, mitigation and preparation would be a good idea.

 

Anybody?

 

the arctic and antarctic are polar deserts both get very little precipitation/snow...if there is an increase in snow it's the result of more water vapor- more evaporation/heat ...we can expect the arctic to get more snow as temps rise as well.

 

The Cult of Trumpery, in a constant tizzy over their ubiquitous boogie man "left!", are loathed to ask themselves,

"Since our messiah has decreed that climate change is 'a Chinese hoax,'
why has he done nothing to challenge China perpetrating such a global 'hoax'"?
Is he afraid to challenge China about their "hoax"?​

In the recent Congressional "Blue Wave" Republicans won a huge share of rural seats, while Democrats won every single urban seat and many, many suburban seats. White voters without a bachelor’s degree made up the Republican base, while a coalition of nonwhite voters and white college graduates formed the Democratic base.​

Rural, non-college-educated Whites are now confronting harsh realities that may cause them to question their blind faith in their messiah:

is being shown.​

 

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas in its own right. Also, clouds made up of vapor, tiny droplets and ice less subtly prevent energy from being radiated out into space.

 

So, when Antarctica shrunk last year, it was because there was less water vapor due to the earth cooling? I'm relieved.

 

apparently simple science can be very difficult for some to understand ...

 

Stop arguing and plant more trees. Forests are the most effective carbon sink in nature. The problem is that it is a political argument so nobody really wants to do something about it.

 

too late, emissions grow faster than reforestation can solve the problem...with Indonesia cutting down it's rain forests and the President of Brazil vowing to clear the amazon rain forest for lumber and farms reforestation to stop/reverse climate change is a fantasy...

 

Agreed. Warmer air holds more moisture and more energy which would account along, with decreased salinity of coastal waters due to runoff, for the supposed increase in sea ice around Antarctica while the land ice mass is still decreasing.

 

When you geniuses figure out how the electoral college works so you can win election with your 3M popular vote advantage, you will earn the right to look down your nose at people. Until then, you should defer to higher intellects like Donald Trump.

 

Hey! You told me something that I disagree with Trump on. I don't think the Chinese are responsible for the global warming hoax at all!

 

O Ye of little faith.

 

So I hear tell.

They certainly contain it, but I'd say that's entirely incidental to the warmth of cloudy nights relative to clear nights. Wouldn't you?

If you mean by some other mechanism than the GHE, I agree.

 

We aren't battling over climate change, we argue over the cause and our abilility to change the natural climate cycle.
All agree, for the most part, that decreasing carbon use( gas, oil, coal) would likely only change the climate minutely over the next millinium.

What we should be doing is preparing for what the change is going to bring. It is costing us all billions of dollars in insurance premiums and government funding, every time there is a disaster. Then they rebuild in the same disaster prone areas? We need to stop this practice or we need new building codes in these areas.

 

The connections between sustainable development and limiting global warming are obvious when you go to your local car dealer’s hotdog cookout and they ask you what you want, and you say you want a small pickup truck when they don’t have anything under 6000 pounds. People want to sustain their lifestyle, and get a bigger truck, others want that lifestyle, and a bigger truck, so sustainable development is a nightmare pushing more than 6000 pounds down the road to transport one person without increased greenhouse gases.

The pathways to achieving poverty reduction (eradicating poverty has not worked since Ananias and Sapphira, so that phrase is pure retardation without absolute one world dictatorship and censorship of opposing views), and reducing inequalities are to promote Snowcat (see YouTube) in India so they get bigger motorcycles, and then bigger Trucks over 6000 pounds, then you certainly can reach the goal of more warming with equality. Certainly ensuring health involves socialized medicine for all, energy security is burning what you want for energy, and then food security becomes impossible without troops.

It all boils down to utopia without science to back it up. People want the reassurance of keeping what they have and having more, with the feel good of doing something about climate change, which is why the climate “scientists” propose utopia with health care, energy, and food equality, for a middle class population growth 20 to 50% higher without any science to provide it.

Basically, with scientists like this, we are fracking doomed.

We battle it our own way, because global warming is real, and because the climate scientists are retarded.

 

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy,"
https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

 

I, along with the majority of scientists, can see how the Sun played a significant role in the warming leading up to 1950, but after that and especially after 1980 it totally breaks down.

Likewise, plot solar radiation and temperature on a chart over the last 500 million years. Solar luminosity has increased by 5% yet the Earth is broadly cooler relative to the age of the dinosaurs. This is referred to as the faint young Sun paradox. The paradox is solved in large part by GHGs and especially CO2.

The Sun is an important factor in climate change, but it's not the only factor.

 

Then the obvious answer is to throw up your hands in defeat and give government control over more of your life in the hopes that it can fix things. Government always makes things worse.

 

or you give into unfounded paranoia about government...without government direction nothing will get done ever...everything you have is possible only because you have a functional government

governments aren't a secret evil entity they're comprised of people from our societies, we are the government...governments are of our own making expecting it to please everyone all the time is fanciful thinking and impossible...

 

As usual, we disagree.

 

Always found the climate change debate as exhibit A of lack of critical thinking skills run amok.

When i hear one side argue that all theae scientists are somehow making stuff up, i ask to what end? To secure goverment money? And that the government wants to use climate change to exercise more control of corporate america? This is right there with those to who argue bush orchestarted 09/11 from a bunker so that he could justify going to war with Iraq and find reasons to supress freedoms in US.

On the other side, climate change enthusiasts claim they have irrefutable evidence that climate change is real and man is the cause. To find evidence of climate change is easy but there have been some bad predictions here in past decades. Also, even if it is real, there has been climate change cycles for millions of years, proving it’s man made is the challenge.

Now if we just stop all this nonsense and use reason and logic, it is true that carbon emissions have an adverse impact, question really is - has man’s impact tipped the balance to the point where things are now going down a path of destruction? Truth is that man’s impact is very small so we don’t know if it is making a difference or not. It could be making a difference, it may not be. At this point it’s not about whether we know this for sure, it’s about taking ‘responsible’ action IN CASE it’s true. Sounds plausible? the problem here is that many are not willing to steer away from jobs and industries that put food on a familiy’s table. Why would millions of people, especially those in 3rd world, run away from jobs they need to put food on the table? Just because some in advanced world, in cushy white collar jobs or in goverment, claim ‘we think it’s man made, can’t prove it but just in case it is, you all need to stop working and find other jobs’

 

They certainly know that if they advocate for global warming they have a better chance of getting grants. But, no, they are not making it up. For the most part they believe firmly in what they do and work very hard at it.

That is precisely what the OP says with solid evidence that it is true.

That is uncommonly pretty well said. The primary question with the most uncertainty is not whether the physics of global warming is accurate, because at the most fundamental level (like F=ma) it is, but to what degree, on a differential basis, might it cause a problem or not in the future. Except I'm not sure of your latter points. The Paris accord called for 3rd world countries to use more coal and oil to improve their economy, and the 1st world countries to cut their's back greatly to the detriment if needed to their economy and to subsidize the 3rd world economies.

 

Well said. The basic problem is that the global warming crowd has failed to convince the average person of the end of the world for whatever reason. They have convinced the world that we are in a warming period and that human generated CO2 has contributed to it to some degree. But when they say things like the republican party is complicit in the eventual destruction of the planet, people tune out. That is not science. It is partisan politics. So far the predictions of the effects of global warming have proven to be hyperbole. That isn't an effective way to make the argument.

Others have said that it is too late to fix it. If that is true then why try to fix it and why fuss with people's use of carbon fuels. We might as well die together when the inevitable end arrives.

Look at the riots in Paris. Those people are not convinced that paying more for gasoline will improve future life on the planet. They are angry about having to pay for the programs of the elite. Trump was elected here as an anti-elite. It would be nice to really know what will happen in the future but things don't work that way. The scare tactics aren't working. Just ask the Paris protesters and the Trump policial base.

But we can take the politics out of it, plant more plants that are an effective CO2 sink. We can ask people to be more careful and thoughtful about burning hydrocarbons. We can't have government threatening and frightening people to capture more power and control It won't work. It is a scientific issue riddled with politics and politics is humanity at its worst.