+ Water temp !!

[Wallco99]

So heard. The chair now recognizes Jim as Team Leader.

[Steve]

JimM makes some convincing points, but the fact remains that CO2 levels have been pretty even for the past 800,000 years and only started rising with the advent of the Industrial Age. There are no known natural causes to explain this, but there is overwhelming evidence that cars, factories, etc., are dumping millions of tons of carbon into our environment on a daily basis. So there certainly is causation in that regard.

And, yes, while CO2 is not a "pollutant" as Jim states, it is a greenhouse gas and causes heat energy from the sun to be trapped in our atmosphere (without CO2, the sun's heat can reflect and radiate back out into space).

For those who are interested, NOVA just released a great documentary that's available on PBS. The show is called "Polar Extremes" and runs for about two hours. It discusses our warming climate and the end of the Ice Age. It's very informative and definitely worth watching.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

[Steve]

So heard. The chair now recognizes Jim as Team Leader.

No disrespect intended (to Jim), but just because Jim says things that you agree with doesn't make him right. That's called confirmation bias.

[Steve]

[...] the fires in Australia were not caused by climate change. That they happened when the Earth warmed about 1.4 degrees does not mean the warming caused them. In fact, climate change does not cause ANY weather events, fires, earthquakes. Climate is an averaging of weather conditions over time.

I agree that the fires in Australia weren't "caused" by climate change, but I think they were made worse because of it. In regards to earthquakes, absolutely not as you said. Those are caused by geothermal events happening deep inside the Earth and are not affected by what's happening at the surface. But the weather is certainly being affected, and we can expect stronger hurricanes and more severe weather events because of it.

More realistically we should manage our carbon footprint to the extent practical and do what humans have always done ... adapt if necessary.

Totally agree with you.  

[squidspeak]

Well, IMO, this has been a great thread. Differing opinions expressed with a bit of humor. There are a few more factoids to toss into the discussion, not to sway anyone's opinion on global warming, anthropogenic global warming, climate change or the total annihilation of the Earth in "12 years".

The post that indicated there are more trees in North America now than there were when the Pilgrims arrived is correct.

The post that indicated that scientists don't fudge the numbers is in error, particularly on this topic. They have had at least three "breaches of security" that demonstrated the fudging of the data. Revising the data is a full time job.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. CO will kill you in the right dosage.

There are very few ... like none ... places on Earth where the general climate has changed significantly. The hot places are still hot, cold still cold, wet still wet and dry still dry. We do have a lot of sophisticated equipment that can measure changes, no matter how large or small, to the nth degree. It's easy to get caught up in the nth degree and to that extent the planet has changed.

Correlations are not causes. For those folks that wonder what I am talking about, the fires in Australia were not caused by climate change. That they happened when the Earth warmed about 1.4 degrees does not mean the warming caused them. In fact, climate change does not cause ANY weather events, fires, earthquakes. Climate is an averaging of weather conditions over time. It isn't causal.

Are we warmer than we were 100 years ago? Of course. Once you get past that fact, the science morphs into projections and models and, of course, political solutions. As soon as there are political solutions, then there are political games being played. Again, for example, taxation and carbon credits (that can be traded) that have absolutely no chance of impacting the climate.

One last thought ... who has their hand on the thermostat for the Earth and what have we all agreed the temperature should be? We've experienced a slight warming as we come out of an ice age. There are a ton of "solutions" that have the intention of cooling the Earth. Even if we had the power to control the climate, someone step up and make the case for the "correct temperature".

In the meantime, it's a great discussion topic ... Man's Control of the Earth. More realistically we should manage our carbon footprint to the extent practical and do what humans have always done ... adapt if necessary.

I know there are folks out here that aren't going to appreciate this post. I wish them all the best!

Well Sir I respectfully disagree with 92.5% of your post. The only topic you mentioned is reducing, well
lets call it pollution of our atmosphere. As far as the correct temp., I would think an average of say the last 500 yrs. minus the last 15. I think when it is suggested to tax pollution it is an attempt to force mankind to deal with
an issue that people would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it is not critical. Unfortunetly  I
still have to work and summer sux for work, it was not always that way. I believe you are very mistaken if you think there is no correlation between extreme weather in a lot of the world and the rise of green house gases.
But I'll still have a beer and a crab with you, Respectfully  Mike

[Wallco99]

Well Sir I respectfully disagree with 92.5% of your post. The only topic you mentioned is reducing, well
lets call it pollution of our atmosphere. As far as the correct temp., I would think an average of say the last 500 yrs. minus the last 15. I think when it is suggested to tax pollution it is an attempt to force mankind to deal with
an issue that people would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend it is not critical. Unfortunetly  I
still have to work and summer sux for work, it was not always that way. I believe you are very mistaken if you think there is no correlation between extreme weather in a lot of the world and the rise of green house gases.
But I'll still have a beer and a crab with you, Respectfully  Mike

Yeah, that sounds logical.   .  There are 7.8 billion people on Earth. 351 million of them live in the U.S. Of the 351M, it is estimated that there are 138 million taxpayers in that group. So how in the [Sam Hill] is taxing 138M people (which is only a measley 1.76% of the world's population) going to fix this so called "Earth problem". IT'S NOT. Americans will get regulated, more money will go into the government's pocket to fulfill their agenda, and the rest of the world (the other 98.24% of humans) will continue doing what they are doing, unregulated. The word TAX is just that, a tax, not a solution to "un-pollute the Earth, or cool it to some imaginary temperature that you think it "needs" to be. You can give every single dollar made to the government for this issue, and you will never see one iota of difference with the climate, or anything climate related for that matter. And as far as pollution....forget it, because the rest of the world just doesn't care.

[squidspeak]

Yeah, that sounds logical.   .  There are 7.8 billion people on Earth. 351 million of them live in the U.S. Of the 351M, it is estimated that there are 138 million taxpayers in that group. So how in the [Sam Hill] is taxing 138M people (which is only a measley 1.8% of the world's population) going to fix this so called "Earth problem". IT"S NOT. Americans will get regulated, more money will go into the government's pocket to fulfill their agenda, and the rest of the world (the other 98.2% of humans) will continue doing what they are doing, unregulated. The word TAX is just that, a tax, not a solution to "un-pollute the Earth, or cool it to some imaginary temperature that you think it "needs" to be. You can give every single dollar made to the government for this issue, and you will never see one iota of difference with the climate, or anything climate related for that matter. And as far as pollution....forget it, because the rest of the world just doesn't care.

Rick I have given this a lot of thought, are you bringing your meatballs to the Wye?

[Wallco99]

Rick I have given this a lot of thought, are you bringing your meatballs to the Wye?

I fine tuned my number, it is actually 98.24%. A few more than I thought. LOL.

[jp57]

I read this article and was surprised at how much China is doing to help. Not to give props to a communist country, but at least they don't mind losing a little on the GDP to make change.

https://listverse.com/2019/12/12/10-reasons-our-last-hope-for-a-green-future-lies-with-china/

[Steve]

[...] or cool it to some imaginary temperature that you think it "needs" to be.

I think the "imaginary" number in question "needs" to be the number seen during the past 800,000 years (prior to the Industrial Revolution).

[JimM]

No disrespect intended (to Jim), but just because Jim says things that you agree with doesn't make him right. That's called confirmation bias.

No disrespect at all! AGW is a knotty problem and information bias abounds. Differing opinions are expected and appreciated.

We may all be dancing on the head of a pin. None of the factoids I offered have any bearing on the total destruction of all humans on Earth due to incineration. I don't happen to believe politicians that use these types of scare tactics to implement One World Order, bilk billions of people through taxes, and have no hope of solving the whatever the problem happens to be. That's just me. In a perfect world without the bias and hyperbole, we would be given the information ... including a recitation of all of the things we really don't know or understand or simply got wrong ... from a wholly scientific perspective. The fact is that no credible source has defined what part of the warming is directly attributable to human activity. I've seen the range from about 7% to 90+% and each one makes their case pretty well.

Is the warming real? Yes. Is it a concern? Well, not for about 6 billion people for a variety of reasons. I do like the response that suggests what the "correct" temperature should be. It's not a bad suggestion at all. The folks in Canada and Russia that have invested in agriculture over the past 50 years may not agree with it. I didn't notice who had their hand on the thermostat. There's plenty of room for debate on all aspects of this issue.

IMO, had we had the same instrumentation to measure all things back during the Medieval Warming Period, we may have experienced the same kind of alarm and have been asking the same kind of questions. It takes the internet to really spread the panic, so they may have just scratched their head and gotten back to the fields.

This has been a great way to spend a few winter minutes. Putting idle hands to use and connecting with folks is never a bad thing. One last little factoid I ran across recently ... the acreage of grass in the Chesapeake may be at an historic high (if I read it right) ... beneficial for just about all of the bay ecosystem. The article attributed it to better control of point source pollution and warming. Made my day.

[JimM]

So heard. The chair now recognizes Jim as Team Leader.

Now that's funny! Thanks!

I respectfully decline the honor. As a Team Leader, I couldn't poke at folks with a smile.

My plan to address global warming is to make the best of it. When I was crabbing I really didn't notice that I was an inch or two further from the bottom or that I may have been able to start a few days earlier or stay on the water a few days later. When I was at the ocean, I made sure I stepped back another inch to make sure I didn't get wet. When it was hot, wet, windy, cold, dry I dressed for it. Of course, that's just me. I do burn a bit every year, but I've been doing that for about 70 years and have never ever implied that it was due to extreme warming. It has always been my own fault. I still commute to work, but only because my family likes to eat, wear clothes, and have a roof and not because I think global warming is a hoax and should be disregarded. Again, that's just me. As far as what I plan to do to "adapt", I plan to vote. On my list of priorities that determine my vote, global warming just doesn't make the list.

[Steve]

Is the warming real? Yes. Is it a concern? Well, not for about 6 billion people for a variety of reasons. I do like the response that suggests what the "correct" temperature should be. It's not a bad suggestion at all. The folks in Canada and Russia that have invested in agriculture over the past 50 years may not agree with it. I didn't notice who had their hand on the thermostat. There's plenty of room for debate on all aspects of this issue.

As I said earlier, the CO2 "thermostat" had remained at the same setting for the past 800,000 years, so that should probably be the "correct" setting IMHO.  

[Wallco99]

As I said earlier, the CO2 "thermostat" has remained at the same setting (roughly) for the past 800,000 years, so that should probably be the "correct" setting IMHO.  

There is no physical way that can be known or recorded. Purely speculation.

[JimM]

As I said earlier, the CO2 "thermostat" had remained at the same setting for the past 800,000 years, so that should probably be the "correct" setting IMHO.  

Got it. Acknowledged it. If we drop the global temperature 1.4 degrees and keep it there, you will be happy. There will be others not quite as happy.

All of that presumed that mankind COULD control the climate/temperature. The second part of that thought was "Who has the responsibility for the thermostat?". And continuing that thought, once the Earth is cooled by 1.4 degrees, what triggers additional action? A 0.1 degree rise or fall? Over what period of time? That's just temperature. Next will be precipitation ... and the inevitable lawsuits when crops fail, floods occur, hurricanes devastate ... just as they have for millennia without this total control of the climate.

The reason for the hypothetical questions is to bolster a case that humans controlling the climate of the Earth is folly. Call it the "hubris of mankind".  Of course that's just one persons opinion.

btw. The only reasons I would advocate and support staying out of the Paris Accord is because only one Country on Earth took climate change seriously over the past 30 years and already reduced our carbon footprint by 21%. It is also the only Country destined to pay for the privilege of being in the agreement. China and India were excluded from both the goals and the reparations. We are already exceeding the goal without signing onto Paris or Kyoto and the CO2 levels continue to rise.

I like my factoids ... the MWP saw similar global temperatures as we have today. Back then, civilization had a couple of hundred years of humankind prospering. I agree, however, that if a temperature is going to be selected yours is as good as any.

[JimM]

There is no physical way that can be known or recorded. Purely speculation.

It can be guessed at and really wouldn't be all that far off from whatever the technical reality happens to be. We've only been able to measure global temperatures for about 40 years and have extrapolated the rest. Heck, we've only been recording temperatures for a little over 100 years. Same thing for sea ice extents, atmospheric gas concentrations, ocean acidification, and variations in our orbit.

I like to get folks to scratch their heads and think a bit. We recently discovered the PDO (El Nino / La Nina) cycles and all scientists agree that it is a major weather factor in the Northern Hemisphere. For some folks, weather and climate are the same. They aren't but that's a different story. Here's the head scratcher: What triggers the cycles to flip, can we predict the length or strength of a cycle, and what impact does human activity have on it?

There aren't any good answers and yet the PDO has been doing its thing for thousands of years.

Just another data point to consider when we talk about humans controlling the climate of the Earth.

[Steve]

There is no physical way that can be known or recorded. Purely speculation.

Sorry to burst your bubble (pun intended), but scientists do have direct (physical) ways to accurately measure the CO2 levels from the past. Ice core samples are one such way, tiny air bubbles trapped inside from hundreds of thousands of years ago contain snapshots of air quality from those times. There are other methods too.

"Ice cores contain little air bubbles and, thus, represent the only direct archive of the composition of the past atmosphere," says Hubertus Fischer, an experimental climate physics professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland and lead author of the study. A 3.2-km-long ice core drilled almost a decade ago at Dome Concordia (Dome C) in Antarctica revealed 800,000 years of climate history, showing that greenhouse gases and temperature have mostly moved in lockstep. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105081228.htm

Take two hours out of your life and watch this show, it explains a lot:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

[Steve]

Take two hours out of your life and watch this show, it explains a lot:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

And if you don't want to spend two hours, then spend two minutes:

[Steve]

And if you've got three minutes, then watch this better one:

[Wallco99]

This one only takes 32 seconds.