The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

We live in a disposable culture, so preservation is not a big priority. If something gets ruined, just throw it away and get another one (relationships too).

I just finished watching this. What happens when ruination exceeds you ability to cope? Bruce Sterling surveys the future. Squatters in the upper floors of periodically flooded 'wet favelas'. Seasteading and colonizing the Moon fail, but Bucky Fuller's floating cloud cities succeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p4DV80xrm8

He finishes up sitting in an Eames Bros. chair in a palace above Turin, Italy, and asks for your pity.

[sendler]

Nuclear pride rally in Germany.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#18dc137a49cf

[Xist]

In this rally we see two Germans with a glow around them so people watching will think “Wow! Maybe I will glow, too, if I use nuclear power. Glow.”
“Who glows?”

[That was based on a Comfort Inn commercial]

Yes, I only see global warming increasing hurricanes if somehow the surface warmed up more than higher in the atmosphere, but that would not make any sense, although in 2014 people were saying "Yes, the poles gain ice, that is how global warming works."

Here is some nonsense from 2014 saying that 95% of the fifty models (47.5?) depicting both poles melting, this totally makes sense: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It is a hoax when the belivers are telling us "there's going to be more major land falling hurricanes like Harvey, Florence, Mike" and the long term trends are not supporting that at all.
The way the segment was presented was "it's happening now" not "we think this is what's going to start happening".

Then sample size. How do we know the all the 1885 to 1930 hurricanes, aren't actually normal. Or maybe it's exceptionally rare happening only once every few hundred years.

ALL the data show that climate change is happening, and that we humans are causing it.

There is no debate on this.

[oil pan 4]

If it's not open for debate then it's not science.

The only parts of science that are not open for debate are scientific laws.

[freebeard]

There is no debate on this.

Where's the fun in that?

Off by one on the simulpost.

ALL the data show that climate change is happening, and that we humans are causing [affecting/effecting] it.

Words matter.

[gone-ot]

"ALL the data show that climate change is happening, and that we humans are causing [affecting/effecting] it."

Affecting = causation, influence, impact upon, altering
Effecting = result, consequence, aftermath, repercussion, impact

[redpoint5]

CO2 prior to the industrial revolution was 280 ppm, or 0.03% of the air. We're at 405 ppm now, which represents 0.04% of the air. That's a 45% increase in CO2 levels though.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If it's not open for debate then it's not science.

The only parts of science that are not open for debate are scientific laws.

Newton's *Theory* of Universal Gravity was superseded over a century ago.

Laws can be rewritten too.

-

I suppose it is more accurate to say: The consensus is very strong amongst those who actually study the field and who understand it.

-

I used to be a skeptic, until just a few years ago. But the more and the deeper I read into the literature, looking at all the research into other factors that deniers keep bringing up (solar cycles, heat island effects on weather stations, satellite orbital decay, lowering sea levels in selected areas, blah blah), the more I realized that the case was pretty tight, and that insane amounts of cherry picking were needed to oppose it.

I like arguing these things because it forces me to research and evaluate evidence. So far, no smoking gun for the anti, lots of bullets for the pro side.

Could there be a paradigm shift that overthrows the current state of climate science?

Quite possibly. More and more advanced computer modelling and analysis are increasing our understanding of climate systems every day.

Will it come from deniers posting conspiracy theory videos on YouTube or long rants misinterpreting and misrepresenting the science?

No.

-

In the end, the real... and only... question we should be arguing about is whether we have the capability to scrub carbon from the environment to fine-tune greenhouse forcings (because such an ability would help us greatly, whatever the current trajectory of global temperature is)... and whether we have the ability to transition to non-scarce energy resources within the next century.

[redpoint5]

Nice post niky. My other question is whether global warming, at least at its current form, might have more positive than negative consequences for humans. It's a topic almost not discussed at all.

1 site I mentioned above said we would observe net positive effects until 2080. Nobody commented on it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

If we reap positive benefits until 2080, and then gradually begin to experience negative consequences, the rational thing to do would be to leverage science/technology to keep conditions somewhere around 2080 levels to maximize human well being. I expect we'll have much better technology in the next 60 years.