The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

*If all Americans vote for climate change mitigation with their dollars,in a free market,would that leave the government anything to do?

Greetings, fellow anarcho-capitalist.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Vman455

No, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide =/= doubling the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is only one of many heat-absorbing gases, and we would have to double the concentration of all of them to double the heat-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere as a whole.

*Water vapor is given top billing as a greenhouse gas.
*Caron dioxide is the #2 greenhouse gas.
*Warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases(Methane,CO2,Nitrous Oxide,Flourinated hydrocarbons,Chloroflourocarbons,etc.)increases evaporation and atmospheric water vapor concentration,increasing radiative forcing in the troposphere,alongside the other gases,increasing global warming.
*This latent heat gain is something which often escapes discussion.It's what's been killing El Salvadorans for a decade now.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

Very good point. I see this all the time in my field. I suppose it is my duty as a student of science to give more value to the data and conclusions they have reached. However, there is much we do not understand, and climate science is complex. I believe it was only 60 years ago that the experts of the day expected us to enter another ice age soon. Global cooling was the panic back then. That kind of flip flop makes me hesitant to accept what the current theory is now.

A look at the original research from the 1970s reveals why there would have been talk of global cooling.They were perfectly justified in their concern.
For the same reason there was concern for allowing Thalidomide to be sold in the USA.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Not in the slightest. We can develop GMOs to increase crop production in the environments in which they grow. We can build dikes and live below sea level, as shown by Denmark. We can build tougher structures to withstand wind storms.

Normally I'm in favor of addressing the root of an issue, but in the case of the outdoor thermostat, that doesn't seem as feasible as dressing appropriately.

*The geneticist don't have any confidence that they can develop GMOs which can outpace the speed of adaption on the part soil moisture,drought,invasive plants,heat stress,photosynthepause,heat death,airborne fungal pathogens,invasive insect infestations,monoculture-targeting pathogens,soil temperatures,change in germination times,blossoming times,pollinator arrival times,length of growing season,extreme precipitation events,early freeze,late freeze,etc..
*In the 'Sinking Cities' series on PBS,urban planners and architects were choosing to build floating cities.They can't afford to build sea walls which can handle anticipated sea-level rise.
*Intentional migrations are planned.
* I'm unsure of the context for structural 'wind' loading.Hurricanes come to mind,but in their case,you're designing for tidal surge,not necessarily wind.
*And dressing for future anticipated latent heat would require nudity for any chance of survival,then fans,then refrigerated air,or else death.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So then you launch into your own whataboutisms?

No whataboutisms - those are likely results of climate change.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The anthropogenic component of the warming is all we ever had an ability to address.
*This warming is the driver for the non-natural-variability-related rates of change we're experiencing.
*We are presently witnessing the inability for natural systems to adapt.
*Scientists caught hell in the 1970s when they mentioned a global cooling trend they were observing.
*They can't win for losing.
*Scientists are the new black.

A 2 degree rise here at the 45th means I can stop wearing flannel earlier in the year.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

No whataboutisms - those are likely results of climate change.

If you have a link to the study that predicts 50% crop failure, I'd like to see it. Sounds like a whataboutism to me.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Fun new poll numbers are out.
Only 12% of American voters believe that the government should be expanded and given power to "fix climate change".
52% of American voters are against it.

Source, please?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

I can't believe how many posts are on this topic. I'm all for being more efficient, though more for the economic sense of it and to better utilize our resources. Has anyone considered here that efforts to curb CO2 production are futile? Supposedly there has been 6 mass extinctions in earth's history, and multiple cycles of heating and cooling. I theorize that nothing humans do will change what the climate will ultimately do. According to one source, we are in an interglacial warm period. After some thousands of years, the earth will cool off again, which will cause many of its own problems for us.

Slight correction - we are in the midst of the sixth extinction - and it is accelerating.

We know the answers to your questions - we humans are warming the climate, by burning fossil fuels.

We know that WE are adding the carbon dioxide - so we can stop. Hardly futile.

We do not want run away warming, that is for sure. The earth is not going to be too cool - that is also a certainty.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Vman455

No, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide =/= doubling the amount of heat trapped by the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is only one of many heat-absorbing gases, and we would have to double the concentration of all of them to double the heat-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere as a whole.

If we stopped emitting ANY greenhouse gas right now - we will still get at least 50 years of warming - and that may already push things into a feedback amplification.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by Taylor95

Very good point. I see this all the time in my field. I suppose it is my duty as a student of science to give more value to the data and conclusions they have reached. However, there is much we do not understand, and climate science is complex. I believe it was only 60 years ago that the experts of the day expected us to enter another ice age soon. Global cooling was the panic back then. That kind of flip flop makes me hesitant to accept what the current theory is now.

Global cooling was not the "panic" then - it wasn't even the scientific conclusion. We had a brief period of cooling, because of particulate pollution - and ironically, because of the EPA clamping down on pollution - we stopped the slight cooling.

Please be careful what you accept as fact - there is a FAKE cover of Time magazine, that lead people to think there was a conclusion that the earth was going to cool to the point of an ice age.