The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I realize there are external circumstances which threaten to simplify, and I'm quite for efficiency which is why I'm on this forum. I'm simply pointing out that our increasing ability to do more with less (efficiency) is directly related to consumerism.

Though I lean Libertarian, I'm not a Libertarian, and I accept that artificially influencing an otherwise free market is sometimes necessary. I'm open to the idea of slowly and progressively increasing the federal tax on fossil fuels, for instance.

What I'm not ok with is subsidizing particular industries (EV incentives) or banning plastic grocery bags at the supermarket. Those ideas are retarded (not of developed quality).

... and I've always wondered why humanity hasn't figured out how to live on the sea in larger numbers. If it covers most of the surface of Earth, then it seems we should be utilizing more of it.

So let's begin with abolishing the oil depletion allowance,and it's equivalent with coal and natural gas industries.Adam Smith never advocated for government give-aways to joint-stock corporations.Let's have a real free market.Right?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I Google searched for a list of global warming predictions that came true and the only results that came back are ones that were wrong.
Garbage in, garbage out.

I'm nearly through a new book (to me) which has this data.Perhaps I'll have something to share in a week.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The earth is in a constant state of change.
For the planet to not be warming or cooling would be unnatural.

Very true! It's what's happening,which falls outside natural variability (which scientists have a very good handle on) that is of concern.And what is happening outside of natural variability is a consequence of fossil-fuel combustion,plus the other anthropogenic forcings mankind has contributed.
It's not the Sun.It's not clouds.It's not cosmic-'ray' secondary particles.

[oil pan 4]

All these claims of global warming predictions that came true, but no example.
Giess devout believers don't require proof.
This is where it starts to look more like religion, acult than science.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Very true! It's what's happening,which falls outside natural variability (which scientists have a very good handle on) that is of concern.And what is happening outside of natural variability is a consequence of fossil-fuel combustion,plus the other anthropogenic forcings mankind has contributed.
It's not the Sun.It's not clouds.It's not cosmic-'ray' secondary particles.

Prove it.
The way you say it almost sounds like there were data gathering instruments running thousands of years ago and so a direct compairson can be made.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Prove it.

All the data,names,quotes,locations,affiliations,and dates are in this book.I'll try and have a condensation of it in a week.Appreciate your patience.

[aerohead]

We have millions of years of climate data via proxy data.Tree ring dendrochronolgy,geologic stratification,stalagtites,corals,ice -cores,sediment- cores,foraminifera,isotopic assays of carbon-14,berylium-10,oxygen-18,etc.,have allowed researchers to reconstruct the past.Air bubbles trapped in the ice sequester carbon dioxide,methane,etc.,which allow paleo-atmospheric reconstructions.Sea-levels can be ascertained.Isotopes tell us about cocmic particle activity,hence solar wind,hence solar minimum-maximums/galactic/intersteller cosmic particle bombardment.We can tell if carbon came from oil,natural gas,forest fires,peat bogs,or coal.We can witness volcanic activity,the parasol effect,acid rain.Temperatures can be derived from greenhouse gases trapped in the ice.
There are hundreds of years of ships logs which contain soundings (mark twain),temperatures at depth,surface water temperatures.We have declassified,formerly,top-secret ship log data from US,British,and Soviet naval vessels/submarines, from the Cold War era.Balloon data since before rockets.Rocket-derived data.
In 1978 we began satellite remote-sensing.We have limited terrestrial weather observations from countries and colonial holdings.Thermometers and barometers have been around a long time.We've had solar observations continuously since 1611.
Volcanic eruptions are written in the ice.
We know when changes to ice bridges, glacier-melt inland seas,and major tectonic /geographic features happened.The three Milankovich Earth orbital perturbations are accounted for,to an accuracy of fractions of an arc-second.Magnetospheric polar reversals are recorded in the rocks.Atmospheric photochemistry is well understood.Computers get faster.Numerical models get more sophisticated,with ever higher resolution,and results arrive sooner.
We know enough to model the climate to above a 90% accuracy,going backwards and forwards.

[freebeard]

We know for a fact that solar irradiance-forcing is only 1/10th that of anthropogenic greenhouse forcing.

This is the part I don't get. Irradiance-forcing is different to simple irradiance how?


http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManag...g/opinion.html

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If people used common sense there wouldn't be a disaster or it would be greatly minimized.
I don't understand how people can live in a triple threat or more disaster area can be so oblivious and just hope it will never happen to them.

That's simple - they just deny the risk.

Like man- made climate change. Don't like that? Deny.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

We're going to die of heart disease or cancer, just like everyone else. Sure, some people will be tragically taken by weather-related events, but they will still pale in comparison to heart disease and cancer.

It wouldn't be crazy to hear some politician talking incessantly about heart disease and cancer, yet we would probably think them to be crazy.

We don't like to talk about things actually likely to happen to us, because that would require confronting our real vulnerabilities.



The faster the rate of change, the more disruptive it is to the inhabitants. Adaptation is a process that takes time, and when the time frame is accelerated, it puts more pressure on creatures to make the requisite changes.

The problem isn't that the climate changes, it's that it changes quickly relative to geologic time frames.

Still, it doesn't seem that humanity will suffer so much given that these "rapid" changes still take several human generations to manifest problems. As I said, nobody is going to wake up tomorrow with seas being a foot higher.

Seas have risen about a foot over the last 100 years, and people that old don't report how terrible that transition was, or how climate change was the most difficult thing they had to contend with. In the next 100 years seas are predicted to rise about a foot too. Any predictions on what people will be recounting as the most difficult things they have lived through?

I lived through heart disease and think I averted its grip on me. By changing my diet to predominantly vegetables and fruit I think I greatly reduced my risk on colon cancer and other related cancers. But the risk of having to abandon house somewhere in the future is rising every day, and there's little I alone can do about that.

We have to scoop up sand from the bottom of the North Sea and deposit that on our beaches to protect our dunes, by millions of tons of sand per year, replacing a process that nature did for us - but goes too slow to cope with the rising seas. Once in a while bones and artifacts of the people that lived there get scooped up - they lived where there's 15 meter of water now.
There's a recently discovered long section of Roman road nearby my town - at 70 centimeter below current average sea level.
The seas have been steadily and slowly rising over the centuries. It is now rising over 10 times as fast, and that rate is climbing exponentially.

[redpoint5]

Fortunately we're more than 10x as capable as people centuries ago. These are problems worth considering and solving, but there's more immediate threats that directly harm humans.