Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Could there be any better sampling than from the last few pages showing that the science is unsettled? What good is simply cutting & pasting from recycled links that support the MMGW . . . excuse me . . . CC position?

I did not realize that this was a discussion among climate scientists.

The consensus among climate scientists is AGW.

The cut and paste is called evidence. I learned about that in junior high school and it served me well all the way to grad school.

I also taught it to my students and my debate teams.

Have you still not figured out the distinction between climate change and global warming? Temperature is but one aspect of climate. I learned that in freshman geography when we studied meteorology and climatology.

Understanding terms is the first stage of any debate.

[Reefmagnet]

Isn't climate change what you have when your global warming predictions fall flat?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Isn't climate change what you have when your global warming predictions fall flat?

No. Climate change may be the older expression.

Some history for you.

In 1975, geochemist Wallace Broecker introduced the term “climate change” in an article published by Science. In 1979, a National Academy of Sciences report used the term “global warming” to define increases in the Earth’s average surface temperature, while “climate change” more broadly referred to the numerous effects of this increase, such as sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

During the following decades, some industrialists and politicians launched a campaign to sow doubt in the minds of the American public about the ability of fossil-fuel use, deforestation and other human activities to influence the planet’s climate.

Word use played a critical role in developing that doubt. For example, the conservative wordsmith and pollster, Frank Luntz wrote a memo encouraging the use of “climate change” because the phrase sounded less scary than “global warming”.

[Reefmagnet]

Kind of like Y2K bug vs Millennium bug.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Kind of like Y2K bug vs Millennium bug.

No.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

No. Climate change may be the older expression.

Some history for you.

Maybe Jack isn't Jack after all, but actually some sort of robot. Mention GW and CC in the same post, and out comes the Frank Luntz history again. Mention the word "consensus," and here comes the black ball graph, and how Powell's 99% overrides Cook's 97%. Might explain why all the same cut & pastes are being inflicted on us for the 3rd or 4th time.

I learned cut & paste in junior high school too, but higher levels of education quickly taught me they are no longer persuasive if not accompanied by some independent thought and analysis. I guess it depends on whether you want to genuinely educate yourself and others, or merely try and make yourself look smarter. If you can't persuade on the merits, then it's usually the condescension we're reading that follows.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why do not just read James Powell?

Home | James Lawrence Powell

The truth will set you free.

I took your suggestion that I read Powell, but it only reminded me that I had read it the first time you posted it quite early on in the thread. I also remember the lengthy discussion that ensued back then, but hopefully won't be reignited again.

You are correct that the "consensus" -- whatever the percentage -- is AGW. In other words, that man has likely had some influence over the planet's warming. There is little consensus on how much human influence as opposed to natural forces, or what the impacts may be. How many times do we have to go over this?

Actually, the truth might set you free to have to find a new hobby.

[Reefmagnet]

So after 40 years of climate change / global warming, what are the actual devastating effects that have been imparted upon civilization to date?

[sailorboy1]

I have a picture of a bunch of humans wearing furs during the height of the current ice age sitting around a little fire to get warm. Suddenly one of them says "Hey since this little fire warms us up, why don't we start a real big fire and warm the whole world up?"

And so starts man made global warming!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you actually think we can simply let emissions continue increasing at the current rate, and there won't be repercussions?

FTFY

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Emissions are not increasing at the "current rate". The annual CO2 emissions in the US has been about zero or slightly negative for the past 10 years. The US emits less CO2 now than in 2016.

Attachment 122947

This is one reason among many that oil prices are way down.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Good to know, I guess, though I'd probably wanna wait til 2016 is actually over before using it as a benchmark . You do know WHY US emissions are going down, right? Meanwhile, globally, total annual emissions continue to rise.

Originally Posted by Exile

Doesn't matter that the emissions are down in "the world's largest polluter," only that you can no longer truthfully claim that U.S. emissions are increasing. Don't you see, it's the agenda that counts, not the emissions.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

When did I claim that US emissions were increasing?

Sorry if that spoilt your putdown.

Your comments suggest you were not aware that U.S. emissions were not increasing. You also sounded rather disappointed upon learning this. But I understand how much tougher it will be for you to voice your moral outrage in the face of this new-to-you reality.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

You are correct that the "consensus" -- whatever the percentage -- is AGW. In other words, that man has likely had some influence over the planet's warming. There is little consensus on how much human influence as opposed to natural forces, or what the impacts may be. How many times do we have to go over this?

The evidence:



The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple).

The analysis:

-Anthropogenic factor result in global warming

- Natural factors tend to result in cooling.

- Anthropogenic factors outweigh natural factors.

Conclusion:

Global warming is the result of anthropogenic activities.

Happy now?

Condescending enough for you?

__________________

I showed mine; you show me yours.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I have a picture of a bunch of humans wearing furs during the height of the current ice age sitting around a little fire to get warm. Suddenly one of them says "Hey since this little fire warms us up, why don't we start a real big fire and warm the whole world up?"

And so starts man made global warming!

Burning wood releases the same amount of CO2 as decomposition and forest fires. It is part of the natural carbon cycle.

Burning sequestered fossil fuels is the issue.

(NB - no cut and paste)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So after 40 years of climate change / global warming, what are the actual devastating effects that have been imparted upon civilization to date?

Did your search engine break?

Global Warming Effects Information, Global Warming Effects Facts, Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

[svmariane]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So after 40 years of climate change / global warming, what are the actual devastating effects that have been imparted upon civilization to date?

Well, this comes to mind: the Marshall Islands.
{And yes, I know it's CNN but still...}


You're making this island disappear

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did your search engine break?

Global Warming Effects Information, Global Warming Effects Facts, Climate Change Effects - National Geographic

Probably just trying to use Google. I've been told it's only for lazy people who aren't very bright.