Global warming: what did we do?

[Virtual ghost]

I am sorry USA but you are living in your own bubble regarding this topic. (and your media space is full of BS on the topic)

 

[Deprecator]

Citing the intentions of China and India, are we? It's become harder and harder to claim justification for the self-punitive nonsense of the Paris climate accord, where the administration of president Barack Obama committed to garrote American industry with costs of tens of billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions, even as the world's principal offenders, China and India, and most other countries, solemnly declined to moderate their darkening of the skies and their putrefaction of the waters until their economic revolution, involving billions of people, had been completed.

"Nothing horrifies the intelligentsia more than President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change. But, based on new information on China’s emissions, it increasingly looks like the president made the right call.

Just last week, an analysis from Greenpeace indicated that China’s 2018 carbon emissions were on track to grow at the fastest rate in six years. The study, based on government data regarding the use of coal and other energy sources, shows carbon output rising 4 percent in the first quarter of this year. Analysts are projecting similar gains over the next several quarters.

The weakness of the Paris Agreement was that it was lopsided, requiring little from China and a great deal from the U.S. President Obama committed the United States to reducing carbon emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent, which would have meant a substantial jump in electricity costs."

The United States is the first major power to reverse course on this issue; and as in most things, the West will follow.

 

[Coriolis]

If posts in this thread continue to include the political aspects of the climate change discussion, the thread will be closed. Do stay within bounds if you want to keep playing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Why is it so hard for people to have non-political discussions about political topics?

 

[Tellenbach]

I'm all in support of cutting greenhouse gas emissions through nuclear power, reducing atmospheric CO2 by growing more trees, and developing new technologies to assist coastal regions that are in danger of flooding and throwing life preserves to drowning polar bears.

Any policy that doesn't include nuclear power is a joke. Does the Paris Climate Accord include more funding for nuclear power?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why is it so hard for people to have non-political discussions about political topics?

Actually this isn't even political topic, this is scientific topic ... and politics here is just blight that gets in a way of honest conversation.

 

[Virtual ghost]

It is true that Paris Agreement wouldn't solve much since it is way too mild to address the situation in the field, but those that sign it fundamentally agree that there is a problem (what was my point). The problem requires everybody to do serious steps any way they can but economic compromise probably wouldn't be found.

 

[Deprecator]

My initial post merely demonstrated verifiable instances in which the world's premier advocates for global warming have been mistaken, and immediately after we suddenly see criticism of US policy and mention of the Paris climate agreement, which is interesting because I hadn't mentioned either of these topics in my initial post. IMO, if it was imprudent of me to address the criticism of US policy then it was equally imprudent to bring up the criticism in the first place.

 

[Tater]

 

[Virtual ghost]

My initial post merely demonstrated verifiable instances in which the world's premier advocates for global warming have been mistaken, and immediately after we suddenly see criticism of US policy and mention of the Paris climate agreement, which is interesting because I hadn't mentioned either of these topics in my initial post. IMO, if it was imprudent of me to address the criticism of US policy then it was equally imprudent to bring up the criticism in the first place.

If I was directly talking to you I would have quoted you ... but ok, you have my attention.
The main problem with all of your posts in this thread is that even Trump administration doesn't agree with you.


This is directly from state department channel, uploaded few weeks ago.

You can watch the whole thing but in 4:40 it gets interesting and in 5:30 he claims openly that the Arctic sea ice is melting, the rest of the speech is just talking about strategic consequences of that (what confirms his words). I simply don't see how there can't be global warming if Arctic ice is steadily melting (his words).

 

[Deprecator]

The main problem with all of your posts in this thread is that even Trump administration doesn't agree with you.

If you want to read my posts, kindly note that I never made any reference at all to 'sea ice' or 'reductions in sea ice', and that at no point did the speaker from the state department in any way contradict anything I've said. On the contrary, if anything he has only reaffirmed what I've already mentioned: "Compare the data of the United States to China. Its – our CO2 emissions more than tripled between – excuse me, China’s CO2 emissions tripled between 2000 and 2016. Do we want that kind of output in one of the most precious and pristine corners of the world?"

This is directly from state department channel, uploaded few weeks ago.

Sounds like convincing evidence that the US government isn't denying climate change.

I simply don't see how there can't be global warming if Arctic ice is steadily melting (his words).

These were his words: "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade." You're welcome to cite reductions in sea ice as 'definitive, absolute proof that global warming is real', but let's not attribute this claim to the speaker in the video. Climate change is a very real phenomenon, and throughout history you have multiple incidents or periods where this change was far more extreme than other periods. Still, if we want to cite select incidents of climate change as a means to make predictions about the future, then historically the top global warming advocates have consistently been wrong.

In any event, every sane person is opposed to the pollution of the environment and there is a practically universal consensus to reduce automobile exhaust emissions, ensure industrial smoke goes through scrubbers, and that all contaminated water is thoroughly treated before being returned to nature. Every serious person agrees that we must, as a species, show extreme vigilance in exercising man's unique ability to tamper with and alter the environment. We are the stewards of the world and its environment and there are few who would dispute that until comparatively recently, we have not taken that responsibility very seriously. And based on the speech that you referenced, I'd say that Trump's Secretary of State is fully aware of this intrinsic obligation:

"Look, the facts speak for themselves: America is the world’s leader in caring for the environment. Our energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 14 percent between 2006 and 2017. The rest of the world’s rose by more than 20 percent during that same time period. Our black carbon emissions are down 16 percent since 2013 and are on track to drop by nearly half by 2035, the best of any Arctic country. Meanwhile, it isn’t clear that Russia is reducing emissions at all, despite being the largest emitter of black carbon in the entire Arctic."

 

[Virtual ghost]

These were his words: "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade." You're welcome to cite reductions in sea ice as 'definitive, absolute proof that global warming is real', but let's not attribute this claim to the speaker in the video. Climate change is a very real phenomenon, and throughout history you have multiple incidents or periods where this change was far more extreme than other periods. Still, if we want to cite select incidents of climate change as a means to make predictions about the future, then historically the top global warming advocates have consistently been wrong.

So there is no global warming but the massive melt of the ice is clearly visible, to the point that it has geopolitical consequences. That is one really bold way of explaining it and I would also like to see some sources on how this melt without global warming is explained. Especially since this can mean that green house gases aren't green house gasses and the most famous one of them is CO2 (created by burning of fossil fuels). However if green house gasses aren't green house gasses you can't explain why Venus has so high average surface temperature. While it's atmosphere is 95% CO2, feel free to back check this.

Also the discovery of Green house effect isn't done by some modern liberals but by Joseph Fourier a French Scientist in early 19th century. Latter others continued his work as the science progressed with time and all of this was measured and researched down to detail. Therefore if you increase concentration of Green house gasses and other parameters remain the same the planet will warm. There are explanations on how green house effect works around the internet. While if you are correct then the Fourier is a fraud as well as those that came after him through the centuries.


Joseph Fourier



Plus I have to mention that you seem to be playing with Earth's past in a way that says that you don't understand it. Climate did change quite a bit through the geological periods but that doesn't change the fact that we need things to be as they we are used to. Rise to temperatures that existed before on this planet will melt away the ice, however before that wasn't a problem because 200 million years ago there wasn't any coastal cities. While today even very mild rise in sea levels of meter or two will have quite drastic consequences on modern world order since huge amount of economy and infrastructure are in those few meters. Plus continental glaciers are basically the water towers of world that provide fresh water in dry summer time and we just can't afford to lose them. Therefore "there was always change" just isn't true grasping of the picture. Especially since modern times are different than all previous periods. This is because we are burning fossil fuels and that means that we are releasing huge amount of carbon into the earth surface that was underground for hundred of millions of year and it didn't take place in all the changes that happened over time. This is exactly why this topic is alarmist in nature, we are changing the core paradigms.



Your problem is that you are approaching this issue in a too political way ... and this is science sub-forum. Why do you even bother with how much US reduced green house gases if they aren't some kind of a problem ? What China and similar countries are doing is evidently wrong but that doesn't change deeper debate that says that there is a fundamental problem with how modern world works.

 

[Deprecator]

So there is no global warming but the massive melt of the ice is clearly visible, to the point that it has geopolitical consequences. That is one really bold way of explaining it and I would also like to see some sources on how this melt without global warming is explained.

Is there 'global warming' in the sense that we've observed a rise in global temperatures since ~1700? Sure. Is there 'global warming' in the sense that this rise in temperature is in any way unprecedented, atypical or otherwise indicative of a global disaster? Now that's a bit of a stretch. Over the course of 6 billion years, virtually any given region will be subject to extreme outliers in terms of both temperature and precipitation. And yet, these temporal outliers occurring within a range of 10,000 years or even 100,000 years, are still mere hiccups relative to the age of the earth. In other words, even despite the advent of human industrialization, we still haven't even come close to experiencing the warmest average global temperatures, and nor have we experienced the greatest "reductions in sea ice".

Despite the politicized fear mongering surrounding 'global warming', it is obvious from the graph that we are in fact living in the coldest period of earth's history for the last 65 million years.

But wait! What about the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Isn't it true that because of the 'greenhouse effect' that we've recently experienced the warmest ever global temperatures in the past 1,000 years?

Not so fast! Not only are we actually in a deep freeze when compared to the last 65 million years, but numerous studies also suggest that the recent rise in global temperature (i.e. 1700 to present) just happen to fall well within the range of natural climatic variation, and furthermore, they don't even exceed global temperatures from a thousand years ago.

"The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions. In conclusion this impressive piece of research makes a significant contribution to a growing body of evidence that both the global extent of the MWP, and the temperature was similar, or even greater than the Current Warm Period, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentrations today are some 40% greater than they were during the MWP."

The main problem with all of your posts in this thread is that even Trump administration doesn't agree with you.

Your problem is that you are approaching this issue in a too political way ... and this is science sub-forum.

First my main problem was that 'even the Trump administration doesn't agree with me' (can only imagine the mental gymnastics you were performing here), and now suddenly my problem is that my approach is too political? Just like with your science, it seems you're all over the place with conflicting claims. I think your problem is that you're too blinded by prejudice to understand any conflicting or opposing view point, and to such an extreme extent that you repeatedly fabricate fictional claims that are impossible for you to support.

For an example... can you be bothered to point out a specific claim I made that the 'even the Trump administration disagrees with me on', or are you living in a fantasy world with fantasy science?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Is there 'global warming' in the sense that we've observed a rise in global temperatures since ~1700? Sure. Is there 'global warming' in the sense that this rise in temperature is in any way unprecedented, atypical or otherwise indicative of a global disaster? Now that's a bit of a stretch. Over the course of 6 billion years, virtually any given region will be subject to extreme outliers in terms of both temperature and precipitation. And yet, these temporal outliers occurring within a range of 10,000 years or even 100,000 years, are still mere hiccups relative to the age of the earth. In other words, even despite the advent of human industrialization, we still haven't even come close to experiencing the warmest average global temperatures, and nor have we experienced the greatest "reductions in sea ice".

Despite the politicized fear mongering surrounding 'global warming', it is obvious from the graph that we are in fact living in the coldest period of earth's history for the last 65 million years.

But wait! What about the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Isn't it true that because of the 'greenhouse effect' that we've recently experienced the warmest ever global temperatures in the past 1,000 years?

Not so fast! Not only are we actually in a deep freeze when compared to the last 65 million years, but numerous studies also suggest that the recent rise in global temperature (i.e. 1700 to present) just happen to fall well within the range of natural climatic variation, and furthermore, they don't even exceed global temperatures from a thousand years ago.

"The level of warmth during the peak of the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) in the second half of the 10th century, equaling or slightly exceeding the mid-20th century warming, is in agreement with the results from other more recent large-scale multi-proxy temperature reconstructions. In conclusion this impressive piece of research makes a significant contribution to a growing body of evidence that both the global extent of the MWP, and the temperature was similar, or even greater than the Current Warm Period, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentrations today are some 40% greater than they were during the MWP."

First my main problem was that 'even the Trump administration doesn't agree with me' (can only imagine the mental gymnastics you were performing here), and now suddenly my problem is that my approach is too political? Just like with your science, it seems you're all over the place with conflicting claims. I think your problem is that you're too blinded by prejudice to understand any conflicting or opposing view point, and to such an extreme extent that you repeatedly fabricate fictional claims that are impossible for you to support.

For an example... can you be bothered to point out a specific claim I made that the 'even the Trump administration disagrees with me on', or are you living in a fantasy world with fantasy science?

You are fighting a straw man and everything here you posted is missing my point. As I said :

Plus I have to mention that you seem to be playing with Earth's past in a way that says that you don't understand it. Climate did change quite a bit through the geological periods but that doesn't change the fact that we need things to be as they we are used to. Rise to temperatures that existed before on this planet will melt away the ice, however before that wasn't a problem because 200 million years ago there wasn't any coastal cities. While today even very mild rise in sea levels of meter or two will have quite drastic consequences on modern world order since huge amount of economy and infrastructure are in those few meters. Plus continental glaciers are basically the water towers of world that provide fresh water in dry summer time and we just can't afford to lose them. Therefore "there was always change" just isn't true grasping of the picture. Especially since modern times are different than all previous periods. This is because we are burning fossil fuels and that means that we are releasing huge amount of carbon into the earth surface that was underground for hundred of millions of year and it didn't take place in all the changes that happened over time. This is exactly why this topic is alarmist in nature, we are changing the core paradigms.

The bolded are key parts. What was before is almost irrelevant since the system is being remained. Green house gasses are green house gasses and if you continue to pump them out you will brake the system eventually and overpower all other elements of the climate system (that is why they are called that way). All these graphs are pointless even if they are true since carbon we are putting out was underground the whole time. Also we don't need the highest temperature ever to brake the system since we have coastal cities. So we much act before process goes too far, what can melt ice enough to rise sea levels for few meters and that is the end of the world as know it since our coastal infrastructure is very vulnerable. From what I have seen melting of all ice would rise sea level for about 70-75 meters, so if only about 5% melts that is still something like 3.5 meters, enough to submerge endless coastal metropolitan areas. We are playing with fire here.

 

[Merced]

You mean what did a handful of corporations do?

Shit like this is why individualism is a form of torture. You driving to work everyday is not the same as a cruise ship polluting the ocean. It takes collective action to produce change and corporations collectively got together to get away with this.

 

[Deprecator]

You are fighting a straw man and everything here you posted is missing my point.

You can shout random logical fallacies all you want, and yet the fact remains that you're struggling immensely to support many of your claims, and quite consistently at that. By my count you have 15 posts in this thread so far, and no where do you even come close to arguing that recent observations in regards to climate are in any way unprecedented or atypical. Like... do you think that consistently shouting claims that are impossible for you to support is somehow suppose to give your arguments more credibility?

From what I have seen melting of all ice would rise sea level for about 70-75 meters, so if only about 5% melts that is still something like 3.5 meters, enough to submerge endless coastal metropolitan areas. We are playing with fire here.

Yes and again, I for one would be very alarmed, if not for the fact that the global warming kool aide drinkers have been consistently mistaken time and time again in regards to their climate predictions. This, on top of the fact that you've yet to point out any specific aspect of our climate that is atypical or unprecedented. This won't be the first time the world will experience a rise in global temperatures or reduction in sea ice, and it certainly won't be the last. Shouting 'greenhouse effect' in conjunction with random logical fallacies doesn't change this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You can shout random logical fallacies all you want, and yet the fact remains that you're struggling immensely to support many of your claims, and quite consistently at that. By my count you have 15 posts in this thread so far, and no where do you even come close to arguing that recent observations in regards to climate are in any way unprecedented or atypical. Like... do you think that consistently shouting claims that are impossible for you to support is somehow suppose to give your arguments more credibility?


Yes and again, I for one would be very alarmed, if not for the fact that the global warming kool aide drinkers have been consistently mistaken time and time again in regards to their climate predictions. This, on top of the fact that you've yet to point out any specific aspect of our climate that is atypical or unprecedented. This won't be the first time the world will experience a rise in global temperatures or reduction in sea ice, and it certainly won't be the last. Shouting 'greenhouse effect' in conjunction with random logical fallacies doesn't change this.

Not at all I am pretty sure that most would find my argument more though out than yours. Even if I don't have the time to type every detail.


In other words the current situation is unprecedented because never in the history of Earth there was a force that was so ruthless in digging up all fossil fuels to the surface. The force that levels entire hills and mountains to get it, the force that digs deep mines to get it and even deeper oil wells, the force that is willing to drill a mile beneath ocean floor just to get it. Changes in geological time are taking hundreds of millions of years and we are now digging everything up in the terms of decades. That is a system shock to put it mildly, since we are adding new carbon from the ground into Earth's systems. Plus it s public knowledge that fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon. Which then get burned and burning is simple word for oxidation, what means merging of carbon and oxygen into CO2. Which is proven green house gas and science started to explore this already in 19th century.


On the other hand the world never before had large coastal cities either, so what is in the amounts of sea level changes seen before is actually quite dangerous for us. Since coastal cities are unmovable objects, for obvious reasons.

 

[Deprecator]

Not at all I am pretty sure that most would find my argument more though out than yours.

Again, if you think that the 'even the trump administration disagrees with me' then I'm not convinced that you have any grasp or understanding about the contents of my posts; you're quite literally just grasping wildly at straws while consistently refusing to support many of your claims. Ironic, because then later you accuse me of 'missing your point'. Ironic still that you accuse the US of 'living in a bubble', and reference its withdrawal from the PCA, only to later accuse me of being 'too political'.

In other words the current situation is unprecedented because never in the history of Earth there was a force that was so ruthless in digging up all fossil fuels to the surface.

Again, you're merely showcasing how little you understand climate. The process of digging up fossil fuels to the surface may be unprecedented, but in itself this isn't a measure of climate and nor is it an indicator that certain aspect of today's climate are unprecedented. In terms of precipitation, temperature, wind velocities, extreme weather, reduction in sea ice, etc.... virtually no aspect of modern climate is either unprecedented, atypical, or in any way outside the scope of expected trajectories.

since we are adding new carbon from the ground into Earth's systems. Plus it s public knowledge that fossil fuels are made mostly of carbon. Which then get burned and burning is simple word for oxidation, what means merging of carbon and oxygen into CO2. Which is proven green house gas and science started to explore this already in 19th century.

Yes, CO2 is being released into the atmosphere, and anyone can choose to define it as a 'greenhouse gas'. If temperatures today were significantly higher than temperatures of 1,000 years ago it'd be easier to find this alarming, as the increase could then be a reflection of the 40% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (numerous studies suggest that today's temperature are lower). Last I checked CO2 comprises of 0.04-.05% of our atmosphere, and it's not clear what percent increase we'd need in order to observe a definitive and tangible effect on climate (i.e. 'minimum threshold theories'). It's one thing to define CO2 as a greenhouse gas and acknowledge that it's being released into the atmosphere, and it's another thing altogether to try and cite this information when making future predictions about climate.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The thing is that I don't agree with people who claim this is all in the air. Here there are actual pictures of glaciers taken in the past and a more modern version. At this point the problem isn't even "abstract" anymore.

Etc. etc.

 

[Jaguar]

The thing is that I don't agree with people who claim this is all in the air. Here there are actual pictures of glaciers taken in the past and a more modern version. At this point the problem isn't even "abstract" anymore.

Ditto.