Never own a car 4. Never fly 5. Get sterilized. Disagree with 5. That would deny these kids the opportunity of watching their kids rebel against the crap in which they believe. Farris I think you just confirmed one of my suspicions about conservative opposition to climate change activism. Conservatives are generally offended by any form of protest because they equate protest with disrespect for authority. The fact of the matter is that the climate is changing and it threatens our livelihoods.
Extreme weather-related disasters and flooding will continue to be an issue regardless of what one believes. Wow I must give you credit. You certainly can extrapolate a lot out of a modest attempt at humor. But sense you mentioned it, the authoritarians who attempt to dictate how homes should be heated, what food is appropriate, what type of shelter people are permitted to have, as they jet to and from their mansions concern me most.
By the way your ability to extrapolate an over concern for disrespect for authority confirms my suspicions that climate alarmists fear gloom and doom from the most modest of statements. Is worse to be an ostrich with its head in the sand or chicken little full of irrational fears? Who is to say the 20th and 21st century reveals the ideal climate for Earth. You have no idea and neither do I. Statistically you are flat wrong. Please stop the scare mongering.
I know because I pass literally nobody on my 4-mile round trip commute on foot. Except people waiting 45 minutes for a bus to come shuttle them nine blocks. But hey, thank you for posting on a device that is made with, transported to you by and powered by fossil fuels. Extreme weather related disasters have always been an issue. Mother nature has never been a friend to human beings. We use technology powered by fossil fuels to protect ourselves from such disasters.
Stick head in sand no. What we do know is the climate is changing, very likely as part of a natural cycle, through both warming in some parts of the world and cooling in others. The leveraged emotions of the well-intentioned crowd has enormous emotional capital and behooves environmentalists and layman alike to understand that any movement and ideology can be co-opted to serve elite interests. There is a middle ground though very hard to hold onto in the face of tribal hysteria of being offended by everything. But it comes from appraising both poles from the viewpoint of official culture — as it is.
Until we get educated about this, no amount of protesting is going to mean a hill a beans. Ultimately, it means studying psychology, in particular how psychopathy manifests in hierarchical systems and infects good intentions over and over. Activism on prenvetative measure for things we can change such as rainforest destruction, criminal economic warfare, conservation initiatives, GMO etc, corruption in our electoral — local and national — these are far more productive.
Bjorn Lomborg has some practical suggestions on this point and there are increasingly more people who are trying to see through the dead end of trying to get governments to do anything other than maintain the status quo. And you often do that by encouraging what you know are ativities and initiatives that will go nowhere. Having worked in conservation and environmental movements for over 20 years, I can safely say that many of these folks are the most militant people on the planet. Many are also the most well-intentioned and kind. Which unfortunately predisposes them to ignore the reality that tends to counter to idealism.
I think we have to concentrate locally and avoid getting caught up in largescale movements and initiatives which are usually distorted and infiltrated by those who have no wish at all to improve our environment. This is the story of history from the perspective or war and of environmental changes. I do wonder how many of these extinction rebellion protestors have actually initiated tangible and workable solutions within their community and at the local level. Very few I suspect. Instead — as it often appears to be — merely letting off steam that naturally goes nowhere.
Anyhow, a good article from a young man who has his head screwed on. What the human condition even likes less than sticking the head in the sand is the feeling of being powerless, of not being able to do something against their angst. To avoid this unbearable stress some call for the gods and others go for blind activism. They know it will not help, but at least they have tried. This is especially true for politicians and their reelection.
I think CO2 has no to little effect on climate change. Most conservatives are constitutionalist. They support the right to free speech and protest. That is a far cry from not wanting someone to protest, and understanding that their protest is based on shady information at best, and the propensity for the left leaning government to use kids as pawns in their agenda. Flooding can be a problem because sea level is rising 3 mm per year, or about 30 cm per century.
Belief that global warming is causing unusual disasters is caused by propaganda. Just think back when you were 16 or 18 years old. Maybe you were a child prodigy who could absorb science books, and understand them, at a super human rate, like a Savant. I kinda doubt it, but for some bizarre reason, the world is suppose to look a them as heroes and brave. Well said. Alternative fuels, wiser agriculture, less dumping of garbage and plastics and pesticides and herbicides and drugs into our water and air do not require such absurdities.
Pretending that the science is unsettled in terms of primary causes suggests childlike thinking. David, I disagree with you on the point of alternative fuels. Why in the world would you swap an ideal source of energy for a less efficient one and certainly more dangerous just think to the poor Elon and his explosive Teslas by instance to figure out the real problem of the future giantic batteries which is needed so that alternative energies can be a real substitution to oil and gas.
What a perfect compromise between practicality and power! I like and admire nuclear technology too but its uses are, and should be, far more limited. Plastic is a great thing by the way. CO2 is good not evil. Oh, I know : there are some inconvenients. But you see, there are inconvenients in every technology : all the question is in the risk-benefit balance.
Finally, I think it would be absolutely foolish to do without such a perfect gift from heaven or our mother Earth as long as we can have : let us not swap a proven and efficient technology for some sloppy devices. It actually is unsettled and someone who has done the research and knows what both sides are saying would know that. What you feel might be the case and what is are two different things.
Childlike is exactly the level of thinking that the radical conservatives are engaged in on climate change and other environmental concerns. Having grown up as what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican social liberal, fiscal conservative, to those of you who may not be familiar with the term , I am dismayed at the thought that Liberals are now the adults in our political room, and that Conservatives have dissolved into a pool of fear and ignorance, but there it is.
There is a big difference since the word fuel is a physical substance that when reacts with another substance it creates heat energy. Agreed that solid waste is a problem, as well as dioxins emitted into the air and water are the real pollution problems that need addressing further. But your misuse, and misunderstanding, of terminology is becoming all too common in this discussion, which leads to misinformation.
Clearly they were way ahead of their time in promoting zero or negative population growth. I wonder if the island is now under water what with the rapidly rising oceans and all. Not a difficult question, but what the heck, be a cad, go both.
Exchange Discount Summary
No Underarmor, no dry fit, no polyester, no rayon, no plastic water bottles, no plastic at all, no food supplies delivered from afar. Only root cellars and locally grown, in season vegetables. And, on and on and on! The tree-huggers might have a point but their ire is directed at the wrong quarter. The 20 countries with the lowest emissions are almost all LDCs. Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot.
The more you toot the happier you feel, so eat some beans with every meal. Thurnberg allegedly took on 1 and 4. Excellent point by the author that an adult response would be a day where schools actually focus on the topic, instead of increasing ignorance via truancy. In my ipinion and from the masses of scientific information and climate specialists I have read and listened to both Thunberg and Kurby are wrong. But Kirby is at least prepared to have the debate about it.
The Climate Zealots have shut down the debate. Theories are indeed far from perfect or being complete, but they rest on physics not on correlation. It continues to baffle me that the correlation angle is the one most played when trying to sell climate change…. Because in this case, the correlation is due to causation. That phrase to deny science shows a lack of understanding because they are often true. Dumping pollution into the air, land and water clearly has negative impacts, measurable and harmful.
For correlation to be causation, there needs to be correlation. Rooting out missed correlations and forcings has pretty much been climate science work for decades now. Turns out that CO2 is a big knob and we are dialing it to the max. We are in the driver seat and going pedal to the metal. As for asking people to have backgrounds in atmospherics science and such to be able to contribute to the discussion, this is only the case if the discussion is about the science validity.
But what we are speaking about here is climate policy and that does not require scientific expertise. In the EU only a slice half of the conservatives are still disputing the science and looking increasingly foolish by doing so. The problem of the left is that they are trying to use the real climate issues as a carrier for their pet policies. High aerosol emissions masked the warming over that period. Nowhere is the author trying to deny climate change. In fact they explicitly dispute people who do. All theyre saying is the science is dramatically more complicated and nuanced than people who just read about it in news articles realize.
There is no real dispute in the scientific community about climate change, but there is real debate about the specifics. What the author is trying to do is irrelevant since aware or not he is propagating misinformation about the science.
The connection between CO2 emissions and warming is completely causative. The greenhouse effect is based on fundamental thermodynamics and chemistry and is directly observed via radiative spectroscopy. The author argues that teenagers can have bad judgement but failed to see that the same can be applied to his own analysis. Without levels of CO2 above about ppm, this chemical reaction is starved of fuel. Apart from minor trace elements, in combination with water all life on earth is comprised of CO2.
The greening effect from C02 can only happen if there is enough water and quality soil available. So far this is the case. But if droughts increase in length and intensity likely carbon sinks can turn into carbon sources. The effect is anyway too small to balance the losses of carbon sinks from rainforest deforestation. Simply ignoring the negative effects of massive CO2 emissions does not allow you to prove CO2 is not a pollutant.
The physics of climatology is extremely complex, and the relationships between, and the weight of, the many physical factors is far from fully understood. My main issue is with framing. A physics argument is both harder to refute and harder to exaggerate. I think that if this whole climate thing would have been framed from a physics perspective from the start, there would be more effort put into finding out the extent of the problem and less into overdramatizing the problem or denying it.
Want to show your knowledge rather than just quoting talking points? What was the temperature during the Holocene Optimum period? How did that happen without increased anthropogenic CO2? Jim Gorman — the global temperature during the Holocene Optimum was probably lower than now and was caused by Milankovich cycles. I doubt you understand anything about climatology if you think this presents a problem for AGW. Do you actually know what it was? It was certainly warmer than today. I think your doubt may be displaced. They are pertinent to your answer.
Do you even know what the CO2 concentrations were during this warm period? Jim, I do not want to show my knowledge as I in no way think my knowledge is at a level for it to be relevant. Quick Wikipedia search, would answer your question with 4 degrees and Milankovitch cycles. Quick search in scientific literature, would force me to restrict my answer to a specific area. Each of the records has 1 of 4 possible sources lake, ike, marine, peat , 1 of over 10 proxys d ice, pollen, IP25, MS, alkenones, forams, dD, dinocysts, pollen flux, BSi, mineral content, diatoms, etc. Do you? Even for this tiny point in the full-picture climate change issue, they concluded:.
In this regard, we find that periods of positive LIS and GrIS mass balance in the early Holocene are consistent with climate reconstructions depicting cool conditions prior to maximum Holocene warmth. Furthermore, it is clear that the minimum GrIS extent was achieved around the time of transition from warm-to-cool conditions recorded at sites around Greenland, as one might expect. However, there are too few studies of GrIS ice margin history to recognize a pattern of change e.
That is why I think discussions on this level are better left to the scientific community. The physics framing is much more straight forward. Science does not provide absolute certainty. It only gives you the most likely theory based on the current knowledge. The real question you should be asking is: what is the probability-weighted outcome of climate change? If human activity is causing it and we ignore it, the planet becomes uninhabitable low probability. If human activity is not causing it but we still implement drastic changes to fix it, we may slow down the progress of our technological development high probability.
Just like how the switch from burning wood to burning oil destroyed the economy and reduced the technological development of stoves.
- I Ain't up Yet : A teen's eye-view of The s by Murphy, Altha-ExLibrary | eBay.
- I Ain't Up Yet: A teen's eye-view of the 1940s.
- I Ain't Up Yet: A Teen's Eye-View of the 1940s;
Confusing probabilities of scientific reasoning with your probabilities about outcomes defies scientific reason. The difference is that in the movement away from burning wood, the change happened gradually, as the alternatives became more economical. The move from fossil fuels would also prove economical provided governments implement a carbon tax. Without a carbon tax, the public bears the cost of that externality.
Implement a tax to shift the burden to the consumer who decides whether to use fossil fuels or an alternative. This makes alternative energy the economical decision and allows the free market to guide progress. The CO2 output from burning a liquid fuel like diesel oil or petrol is directly proportional to the volume or mass of the fuel.
So all the existing per-gallon taxes are carbon taxes, and they are already grotesquely high in many countries. What alternative energy are you referring to? If you want to switch to electric cars for example, the government has to plan for and build vastly more electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, much of which takes years.
Wind and solar are not viable at this point in time to supply the enormous energy requirements if we all switched. We would also require tremendous resources, materially and financially, to replace the hundreds of millions of gasoline and diesel engine vehicles currently in use. I believe, and hope, we will eventually switch to electric vehicles, but it will take years to get there and much more has to be done other than simply imposing more taxes.
A carbon tax is likely to be an indirect subsidy by penalizing fossil fuel. If the carbon tax is high enough to bring quick change, it is functionally equivalent to a mandate. Then define the cost of this externality. Do not include CO2 as a pollutant, as it is not. An increase of 0. John Q. Public is going to pay one way or the other! Oil is a more energy dense, easier to manage source of fuel than wood. So switching to oil was a step in the right direction. Solar power and wind are both incredibly low density energies it takes huge amounts of space to generate the equivalent amount of energy as a natural gas power plant.
Twice your life ago, NASA scientist James Hansen said that by the time you were born the world would for all intents be dead from man-made global warming unless drastic changes were made. Yet since that time the world now emits much more CO2 than in , and yet we are still here and crops are growing better than ever, so you are scientifically and practically correct to be skeptical of climate science predictions.
Thus there is uncertainty about climate models and predictions, but there is much less uncertainty about the cost of the solutions to climate change that you and your classmates should be even more concerned about. I expect you might like a future where you have a good job that pays well, and perhaps allows you to do some world travel, own a nice house, car and the latest smart phone, pay off your school loans and all the other things that adulthood brings that cost money.
Those of us on the skeptical side have been all but shouting these arguments from the rooftops for year now, with practically zero effect. The zealots behind the climate Movement are bored to tears by actual data. They are addicted to the thrill of being part of a Cause. Facts, at least contrary facts, are buzzkill. Now of course, everyone is fixated on Greta Thunberg and the other young zealots, as though the urgency of their feelz were actually correlated with anything real.
Well color me Very Concerned. Exclamation point! The young man who wrote this piece shows maturity and intelligence far beyond his years. This could have been written by a very sharp person twice his age. The sad irony is that his sober realism is likely to make him very unpopular with his peers. SS — thank you and I agree with you. June 11, , Dr.
I Ain't Up Yet: A teen's eye-view of the s: Altha Murphy: jyhoxafi.cf: Books
And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. The trees in the median strip will change…. There will be more police cars…. You should always do a little research before swallowing what you read on these denier sites. They usually turn out to be wrong. One correction. Salon misreported the date. Hanson gave a 40 year prediction not a 20 year prediction but when Reiss recalled it for Salon circa he got the date wrong.
He since corrected himself. So the West Side highway under water prediction was for not Hansen also made predictions that the Arctic would be ice free and those dates have come and gone. Hansen is hardly alone. These are the predictions our climate prophets have been dishing out left and right for decades. It would be impossible at this point, unless your skill set includes chopping wood, carrying water from a manually-drawn hand-dug well, plucking chickens and sawing the head off and smoking your own pig.
This is a non-starter. Tell it like it is. Ask folks why Al Gore and other rich folks are buying properties next to the ocean if they are going to be underwater in 12 years! My favorite example is the Maldives. In , our climate prophets predicted the Malidves would be under water by Similar predictions have been made going back to the 19th century. Yet over the past two decades, the population of the Maldives has doubled and foreign direct investment has quadrupled. The Maldives has no trouble arranging international financing for multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects.
Beach front property prices are exorbitant. In the real world, no one takes the doomsday predictions seriously. Least of all the people who earn their living jetting around the world lecturing the rest of us about the dangers.
LR — Sweden is covered with remote cabins, many of which are very primitive with no toilet outhouse only , no heat besides a stove or fireplace, and in some cases no running water or electricity. I would love to send little Greta Thunberg and her Opera singer mother out to the most primitive and remote cabin in the country, and force them stay there for 1 year without smart phone, laptop, or any other modern gadgets and only enough canned food to last until her garden yields a crop. They would need to haul their own water from a stream, cut their own wood to make fires for heat and boiling water, plant and tend their own vegetable garden, gather berries and try to hunt for animals to eat and skin and process them and see how they feel about global warming and living without modern emission emitting conveniences if they survive the year.
I say this for having lived like that for 2 years in the mountains in Peru for work for a company. I also suspect that any cabin she has ever spent time in is one of the modern ones with refrigeration, microwave ovens, running water, heated floors, and broadband connections.
In my experience and observation as someone who spend a lot of time in the forest, it is a rare woman or girl that likes roughing it for any period of time — especially if they are the ones that need to haul water and wood. Honesty is useful. The Correct, and especially their zealots, the Warriors, pretend that there are no differences between the races or the sexes because their political agenda requires that lie.
But the Deniers pretend that there is no AGW because their political agenda — which in this case is almost entirely defensive — requires that lie or so they think. It seems to me that the defensive lie is more forgivable, because, as to your quote above, you are trying to hold off a destructive, at the very least poorly thought out agenda. However you are doing it the wrong way IMHO. Abandoning science is a dangerous ploy. NASA are lying to us! The calmer and more restrained your arguments, the more likely you are to win me over. I remain cautious. Nobody is going to give up their jet holidays, SUVs, suburban McMansions or urban highrises , big screen TVs, and all the other emission emitting elements of modern life, and certainly the AGW proponents and activists are not leading the way by example.
Are the rich and famous moving away from the coastlines and to higher ground? Are private jets becoming less popular see link? Not to mention the several billion people in the world today without electricity or toilets, are they supposed to just stay poor and in the dark? I take all your points. But if even major disruptions are in store as opposed to our extinction in 12 years , then surely steps should be taken. The Chinese are.
- Grand Cru: Der zweite Fall für Bruno, Chef de police (Bruno Chef De Police) (German Edition).
- iOS Core Animation: Advanced Techniques?
- Welcome to My World.
- Wishing it Was.
Trouble ahead on many fronts. But best to go down fighting:. Ok, but issues of the cost of various programs are entirely debatable and IMHO are entirely legitimate whereas Denial seems like mere obstruction. But the Chinese are taking steps, and they are not known for their detachment from reality. It says something about the West that we now refer to China when we want to make a claim as to what the grown-ups think. Surely much can be done that might even save money? Surely nuclear should be making a very strong comeback? Some of us in the West do consume too much for our own good, how about a return to quality over quantity?
I myself think that the entire infinite growth paradigm is obsolete. It all needs sober consideration. You are correct they are not detached from reality, which is why they continue to build coal plants. The idea that China is taking the lead on climate change is a complete joke. Some token investments in solar and wind, some real investments in nuclear but mainly building lots more coal plants, not just in China but throughout the developing world.
I agree but focusing on luxuries may give the wrong impression that a little less extravagance will do the trick. Try giving up heat, electricity and food. Without fossil fuels, these things all become scarce. Every city in America depends on diesel powered trucks to bring in the food. Every farm depends on fossil fuel powered equipment and fossil fuel technology. Modern, industrial civilization runs on fossil fuels. Once people are made to understand the relationship between energy and modernity, everything the AGW activists have to say is noise.
I suspect many who own them or aspire to own them think they are near necessities. But you are right that without fossil fuels a lot of us would starve to death. I guess you mean Believer in the orthodox theory of AGW. My answer is: the second kind. In several topics, rationality is not on the side of the center party if I may say. And even if you can believe this almost impossible thing, the result will be the same since it means that all the western countries will have to stop greenhouse emissions altogether in a couple of decades if not less , which in turn means a entire collapse of the western countries, and the others not long after you can be sure.
I am generally a fan of Quillette for broadening the debate and allowing for inclusion of otherwise suppressed voices. On climate science, however, I think this is not the right way forward. The following statements could have been taken from the standard climate denier playbook on how to spread doubt:. Correlation is not the reason climate scientists are concerned with climate change. It is the clear understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of Newtonian physics that makes us as confident as we could be that humans cause climate change to a very significant degree the tiny remainder being natural processes such as solar irradiance.
We know that CO2 traps more heat from light than the average atmosphere. And we know they got there by human emissions from experiments that track the concentration of different isotopes of long-lived climate gases in the atmosphere. To get at the magnitude of the human effect, climate models are then used to understand the dynamics of the climate system over centuries. This bit of the equation has more uncertainties than the rest, but there is not reasonable doubt whatsoever that human emissions are the vastly dominant driving force of global climate change.
I agree — it is counterproductive to attempt to confront these silly protesters by questioning the science behind GW, for two reasons. Why pick a fight with an otherwise uninvolved third party? Instead, we should be critiquing the political aims of this movement, as it is highly doubtful that there are any good ideas coming from that crowd. Science happens in the language of numbers, equations and evidence. Propaganda happens in the language of emotional appeals to irrational belief.
You tell me which is driving the Climate Change bus right now. So we are we not imposing sanctions, investing capital, and negotiating moving to nuclear power? WHY not exactly???? The discussion is now one of policy, not science. By insisting on undermining the scientific results, we are increasingly seen as 1 The old rambling dude spouting non-sense best ignored and 2 Not having any serious policy proposal to deal with the issue because we deny its existence.
With climate change impacts getting visible to most, we are handing the Left full ownership of the issue in terms of policy. Conservatives that think that climate change is a fad that will go away during the course of the 21st century are fools. There is still time for conservatives to take ownership of the problem from a policy side, but that window is going to close at some point because when things start to go pear shaped, we will be the perfect scapegoats.
Frame it as a matter of energy independence and keeping the climate and landscape of our nations as patriotic. Justify carbon tarifs as legitimate measures against polluting countries such as India and China. To be honest, I think the US conservatives have gone too far for such a move, but in the EU it could work. Actually you are wrong about the Newtonian physics part.
As such, they are a part of Newtonian physics. The Clay prize problem is not so much an engineering issue of knowing how to simulate any practical problem, but rather about some of the inadequacies of the Navier—Stokes equations as a model in extreme cases, as well as limitations in mathematical techniques that we have today.
Christopher Essex of Toronto University would disagree with you, I think. I just like to watch the mathematicians disagreeing. From all the reading I have done I think that most people are massively underestimating the complexity of the problem and also of the solutions. As it says in the article you referenced, the final test is to, say, put the wing in a wind tunnel and see how it works out.
Fair enough. For instance, ten years ago the Los Alamos super cluster took six weeks to complete a direct numerical solution of a thirty second snapshot of aerodynamic flow over a car mirror. Are you really suggesting that same degree of prediction can be applied to the climate, with its hundreds of thousands if not millions of interacting vectors? On a timescale comprising decades? As a professional mathematician you should be highly skeptical of these extrapolative claims. That is not to say the underlying science is not well understood, which it is, but rather that predictive capacity for this system is sorely lacking at this time.
You raise some very good points. To give you an example, it is much easier to calculate the average flow of some fluid system over the next 10 years, as opposed to the flow at some specific point of the system in precisely 10 years time. The example you mention of the Los Alamos cluster was most likely a very detailed and highly resolved simulation, most likely to track the turbulence effects caused by the mirror.
When it comes to climate, this distinction is basically what differentiates the weather short timescales, highly detailed results from the climate long timescales, averaged out results. Another point is that for very long time scale effects, it is possible to derive somewhat simplified models that are accurate on these average quantities, which in turn makes the calculations simpler. Improvements are happening all the time, but even though it is a highly technical field of research.
You make several good points, and I have quite a bit of experience with statistical fluid modeling my masters degree is in aerodynamic control theory so I am well aware of how calculating an average rather than a specific detail is much easier. My point with bringing up the DNS example was to demonstrate how even a relatively simple chaotic system can be enormously resource intensive to accurately model. I am also aware of how missing a single coupled variable can throw an entire simulation out of whack in less than a thousand iterations using a fairly standard numerical ODE solver.
The climate is intensely complicated, and I am skeptical that these models have taken sufficient variables into account for accurate predictions of even average temperatures. I feel my skepticism is validated by the fact that many warming predictions have been demonstrated false , and further by the continued reductions in the UN climate survey reports over the last decade.
The point I am attempting to make is that while AGW is likely real, the effects of that reality are not well known at this time. Simon — Detailed predictions of the future are very hard and the science and tech for that is not yet here. It is fair to argue about proposed solutions, but in this case, the correlation is indeed due to causation.
No, the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not well understood. CO2 levels have been maybe ten times higher than at present in the past. In fact the case has been made that present levels are at historic lows and that adding more would actually be good for the planet. Simon Rook — CO2 levels and temperature have been higher in the past… hundreds of millions of years ago before humans existed. How does this show rapid warming is good for us or that the effect of CO2 is not well understood??? And my final observation is: The economy is something we have created and yet no one seems to understand how it works.
There are still massive arguments about all aspects of the economy. In fact no economist can ever seem to get a prediction right. And you really expect me to believe you either understand it or can predict anything about it? Simon Rook — Your argument makes no sense. No one to my knowledge has yet been able to prove that the mild, gradual warming since is due to ANY cause outside of long-standing, natural variation due to factors like solar output and the vagaries of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic equivalent.
You guys have had 40 years. The only thing this shows is that your knowledge is deficient or you are being deliberately ignorant. The radiative forcing from CO2 emissions is directly observed and is the only factor that can explain the warming trend. The burden of proof has been met many times over by decades of research. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of newmethods of model diagnosis, but such statistical informationis essential.
So if CO2 is such a precise control knob for global average temperature, we should be able to determine to a pretty accurate degree when the rebound from the little ice age concluded and how much of a rise in temp it caused. Some humility is in order when making grand statements about the past, and doubly so about the future.
And the climate changes so slowly that it is measured in 40 year units. So, we have one unit of climate measurement. Well no, actually, world temperatures are indeed pretty much following model predictions made a couple of decades ago. No, past predictions have indeed turned out pretty good. Not perfect obviously , but pretty good.
Coel, the data presented in your link are unimpressive. How can you appauld their failure at this task and keep faith their future projections will be accurate? A robust climate model would be able to start years ago and predict global temperature change into the present. Struggling with the laughably short time period presented here is indicative that this field is not mature. And this is only looking at average global temperature. The real point of contention is the consequences of this heating. And heaps of other such nonsense. As I said before, 1. Uncertainties on the magnitude certainly exist e.
If I light a campfire and sit close to it, I will warm up. This remains true if I do not even attempt a solution to the applicable Navier—Stokes equations. I am confident of warming up next to the fire in spite of knowing full well how next to impossible it is to be sure of the whether seven days from now. However chaotic and multi-variant and [math-tech jargon] the climate may be, it is plain nonsense to say that we are not warming the planet. Furthermore an increase in radiative forcing of roughly 2 Watts per square meter is pretty small, given that peak solar irradiance is a little under Watts per square meter.
Orders of magnitude is indeed incorrect. This does not mean it is ignored, it means it is part of the climate sensitivity calculation and not the primary cause of changes in temperature. You should at least be aware of the basics of climatology before attempting to criticize it.
Total radiative forcing keeps the earth from being a giant ice ball. The change in radiative forcing from that baseline is what causes global warming. All this fallacious reasoning in order to deny well-evidenced scientific facts that are inconvenient for your political ideology is pretty pathetic. This is simply not true. This thing we call climate is the product of literally thousands of interacting and highly dynamic variables, and CO2 is only ONE of them, and demonstrably of only median importance in the scheme of things. Ultimately all radiation energy comes from the sun.
Now compare that with the amount that derives from a slightly enhanced level of CO2. I have found that AGW types tend to focus on minutia. So they see a little wrinkle in the data and simply freak. But overall it dominates. When you compare the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2, and their actual net radiative absorption based on their actual concentrations, WV vastly outclasses CO2 overall.
Ergo, it is a more important GHG. You completely ignore the fact that we are near the lowest level of atmospheric CO2 in Phanerozoic history. Indeed, it flourished. Your implication is that CO2 levels are approaching the danger point. But if you want to talk correlation, by any reasonable measure atmospheric CO2 correlates exceptionally strongly with life abundance. By the way, your lecturing, superior tone irritates the hell out of me. Unfortunately it is typical of AGW advocates, who seem to think it is their life mission to correct their lessers, as they overestimate their ability to actually do so.
The IPCC is a political organization of scientists, not a scientific organization, and has made far too many unscientific declarations to trust. We know from history that CO2 increases after global warming, not before it. In a world with thousands of variables, maybe millions, it is fantastic to claim that CO2 is the control knob for global warming. A point lost on many AGW enthusiasts is that a world that was warmer for ANY reason would have more atmospheric CO2 due to oceanic outgassing and increased biologic activity.
In all likelihood, Co2 follows temperature far more than it leads. And what looks like cause is probably more of an effect. Unless of course you honestly think one-world socialistic government under totaliatarian, unelected powers is how you would prefer to be governed. LR — if IPCC funding were stopped it would cause little Greta Thunberg and her followers to have a stroke and die, and then who would run the future one-world totalitarian government?
We can never be sure of things we do not see happening in real time, we all assume and interpret based on what we already believe. Seeing something today does not mean that A. We must read it based on what we believe because otherwise you just have a chart of data that says next to nothing. My proof being 1. However, 1 Hitler made it legal to kill jews once and 2 we are ALL every living thing just blobs of cells.
Funny how we can be so absolutely sure about a thing when we cannot even figure to how or why we believe we are rational thinkers, or how life began. We believe that mutations fuel upward evolution but then we intentionally abort the mutated. I have no doubt that people who can support feticide or geronticide cannot be trusted. Global warming now has Biology texts teaching that we must further lower human reproduction. Hold on, I thought we were overpopulated? Why are we saving dying people? Besides, maybe cancer is the next step in evolution.
For a world of evolved things, we sure are terrified of change and that seems counterproductive. Many of the elderly, so we are now told, have outlived their usefulness. Besides, they should not want to live in old, tired, hurting bodies. Overpopulation…limited resources…yada-yada…. Only the weak will die, what is the problem? How can we evolve if we hide from every possible mutation and invader?
All of this seems so ridiculous. We beg organs for the sick and injured and beg money for experimental treatments. And then in the next breath we also encouraging abortion and medical suicide? Who is this all for? Because it seems to me that the only people the educated elite want populating the earth are those perfectly content to sit back and watch a slaughter or who will actually participate in it. Scientific theories start with basic observations for example global atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing , and then scientists ask why it is happening Humans absolutely.
The next step is to ask what the consequences might be. The answer in this case did not rest on noticing a correlation with global temperature. Instead the answer rested on physical analysis of infrared radiation emission and absorption in the atmosphere. It was only then that scientists went looking for trends in the temperature data to help confirm their theory. They have also used repeatable lab experiments, observations of climate on other planets, and computer simulations to bolster their findings.
Theories on AGW do not rest on the correlation of temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations, they rest on and understanding of fundamental physical processes and concepts developed in the mid 20th century. They are the same physical concepts that have helped build a modern society filled with refrigerators, laser pointers, LED tvs, cell phones, and many other devices. It does help prove your point though: Stay in school and take more math and physics classes! Indeed, a lame argument that fails the sniff test, that many correlated things are from causation.
And the correlation is what presented scientists to study, as you point out, the greenhouse effect. Correlation is not causation, in science, describes uncertainty of relationship- two things happening together could be coincidental, have causality in either direction, or both be independently coupled to another driver ie, both are symptoms. Noting correlation may indicate the possibility of relation, testing then must happen.
These terms have a very rigid and precise meaning in this context. Take GW. Correlation: Temps are up, CO2 is up. Both could be contingent caused by increased water vapor. Or both could happen driven by independent cycles- of temperature is driven by volcanic ash in the atmosphere, but the oceans have a year long CO2 emission cycle, period will exist where they appear correlated but are not. Or as another poster noted, the CO2 could be a reactive metric- the amount of CO2 being a product of warmth.
BrainFireBob You completely missed the point, that causation is already proven via the greenhouse effect. AGW never rested on a correlation. I know I can drink tap water. I know the ocean is water. That does not make the ocean directly potable. Actually you are wrong. You simplify the problem way too much. The climate is the most difficult and problematic system we have ever tried to analyse. We are nowhere near getting clarity on it yet. Which is why one uses numerical computer methods, rather than analytical maths. And that works fine.
Your objection is a red-herring. I trust climatologists who say that climate change is man-made and real. All these protesting fools do is piss everyone off, and drown out the genuine informed discussions on how best to address the problem. Even worse, the choice of city for disruption was wrong. Those kids would have been far wiser to protest the increase in coal and gas fired power plants that happened in Germany when they closed their nuclear plants as a result of fears following Fukushima, or perhaps they should have tried their chances at disrupting India or China, just to see what kind of reception they would get there.
Thanks for an impressive article. Me, neither. This glosses over the key point. While the chances of the planet becoming unhabitable are low, the consequences of that are catastrophic. For that reason alone we should be addressing climate change. Some reduction of economic growth is worth mitigating the risk of future catastrophe. TheSnark, of course the assumption there is that global warming will render the planet uninhabitable.
The most similar thing to current warming in the geological record was the PETM, and far from causing chaos and destruction or fire and brimstone , it lead to great flourishing of animal and plant life. Instead of being worried, buy a beachfront property in the Arctic! If you want a more likely Armageddon to fear, fear another glacial period.
That would be catastrophic for humans, and actually has happened often in the recent past. By your own logic we ought to act to prevent this: I suggest accelerating our consumption of fossil fuels. We are a long, long way from those conditions. A closer comparison would be to one of the nine other warm periods of the Holocene interglacial.
Maybe the Roman Warm Period, a middling event. There is no perfect proxy, but I point to the PETM because it was a massive CO2 flux that caused rapid warming, unlike the interglacial periods. TheSnark, sorry, also wanted to mention the Canadian carbon tax is one of the reasons foreign investment in Canada has dropped like a stone in recent years. Far from being minimal, the impact will be to drive business to greener pastures.
The CO2 will still be emitted, just somewhere else like China or India. The only times in the past when the planet became uninhabitable for anything other than simple organisms was when it got COLDER! It is simply not feasible that CO2 concentrations this low are at the upper end of the acceptable range. It implied that man-made carbon emissions had so warmed the planet that life as we knew it would soon be imperiled without radical changes in consumer lifestyles.
Yet in the last 30 years, record cold spells, inordinate snow levels and devastating rains have been common. How to square that circle? Any radical change in weather could be perceived as symptomatic of too much climate-changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A look at the evidence for anthropologic global warming. First the computer models predicted warming that did not occur. Wild predictions of no more snow, Kilimanjaro with out snow and others failed to materialize but yet the models were still to be trusted.
There is evidence of manipulated data and temperature records being adjusted upwards but the faith remains. There is no accounting for solar and geological activity. One has to over look this and a lot more to still see anthropologic global warming. These beliefs guide scientists in choosing variables to measure, theories to test, statistical methods to employ, and more.
This connection between beliefs and methods is a strong one. Most people, when the facts change, change their beliefs. Unfortunately there are those who change the facts to accord with their beliefs — at the moment they seem to have the upper hand. Every day I hear the latest weather disaster — be it flood, drought, bush fire — as further proof of climate change.
This is apocalyptic and frightening, but it is not science. Scientists struggle to agree on how to measure global temperature change, but at least it is a scientific outcome. I agree that we should be cynical about why the focus of the debate has changed. My own view is that this is really a political debate, and young people will always be idealists and be attracted to Utopian solutions. The head of the EU committee for climate change, Miguel Arias Canete — whose family has large interests in the oil and livestock industries — wants zero carbon emissions by In practice, this would mean the end of the oil, livestock, coal and transport industries.
Have these kids thought through the ramifications of this? On the day of the student protests here, a teacher suggested that ,instead of joining the march, her students should take some immediate and practical steps to reduce carbon emissions: turning off the air conditioners for the afternoon, and enforcing the policy of disposing of rubbish in the corresponding bins. It was a hot day and they all decided to stay in school. Their governments have been talking about climate change and promising drastic actions for decades, but have actually done very little.
The gap between words and actions is immense. It is true that reducing old industries contributed, but it is also clear that in the period of to now, both the UK and Germany have each experienced a total real GDP growth i. On the one hand the UK is a services dominated economy, and Germany is industrial dominated, but they each prove that people can make a living whilst reducing CO2 emissions. Since then they have been spending absurd amount of money on solar and wind, to the point of distorting the world market for solar panels and having some of the highest electricity prices in Europe.
And that in a country where it rains or is cloudy or foggy most of the year. And Stephanie, the drop in investment in Canada is more due to lower energy prices reducing the investments in tar sands and other energy projects, not to their carbon tax. Not that carbon taxes are cost-free, all taxes cost something. TheSnark, energy prices have rebounded and foreign investment is still dropping. We need to increase emissions to try to avoid another glacial period. Sorry Stephanie, much as I agree with you on basically everything, current science suggests that the next glacial is actually a few thousand years away.
Too far off for fossil fuels to prevent. Tell the kids they can do their fare share by i giving up internet access, ii agreeing never to own a car and iii agreeing never to fly on a plane. I enjoyed this cogent opinion article by a young student. He is a rational one who remains open to possibilities but is unwilling to be blinded by dogma and passions of the day. His thesis and the headline is absolutely correct. Global warming a hugely complex field, Felix? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. This book takes a peek into what life was like for a teenager in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains during the s.
It is a history of simpler times when neighbors supported and depended on each other for survival. It shows the hard work it took to eke out a living. It shows their ac This book takes a peek into what life was like for a teenager in the foothills of the Ozark Mountains during the s. It shows their achievements and their disappointments.
It was a time when Americans tightened their belts to support their country as they never have since then.
Similar authors to follow
Rationing of essential goods was done without complaining. Almost every home had empty chairs at the table when young men and women left to defend our freedom, with some of them never returning. Young people made their own entertainment. This decade proved to be a pivotal point for women. They entered the armed services and took their place in defense plants and factories as never before. They proved they were capable of doing what had to be done.
The author attended high school during these years and began teaching in a one-room country school at age seventeen. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages. More Details Other Editions 2. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about I Ain't Up Yet , please sign up.