Quoting James:
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere n…
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
"You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?" Wait wait!! I know (holds up hand, waving frantically). As I stated earlier, I place my confidence and trust in the the world scientific community, and let the chips fall where they may. I like those odds. Over the years since science has established itself- it has a great record of explaining the natural world as it truly is. And has a great system for correcting things it got wrong. Compared to any other human-created group endeavour, including the world's religions, it is relatively corruption free and free of agendas. As opposed to - say - the scientists working for Exxon-Mobil. Or the National Baptist Convention.
Your treatise on black body radiation, and on the various intricacies of our atmosphere and its similarities (and not) to a "blanket" is interesting and seemingly well researched. However, the message loud and clear is that today's climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. That they are outright wrong, or at least that there is too much uncertainty in their fields to warrant any action or policy. That I reject out of hand, as should everyone. I believe any climate scientist worth his/her salt could take your arguments and summarily and politely refute them in ways I can only wish I could understand.
"Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation." Are you suggesting that the well known Milankovitch cycle is not a cause of the ice age cycles the earth has gone through for the last few hundred thousand years? I thought that was pretty settled. What I believe you are suggesting is that since this ice age is so poorly understood, then other climate effects are equally poorly understood. Well no - I believe the ice age cycles are better understood than you suggest.
As for living well today while we an still do it - good god man. That is what this is all about. We are in danger of ruining it all in the near term - not 10000 years from now.
Quoting James:
"humankind's proclivity for believing in religious teachings in the absence of evidence is everywhere."
Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith. Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans. To the contrary, the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation".
You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science. It's understandable that politics would be involved if you assume that some regulatory steps must be taken, and that such steps would effect the rising of the oceans or the warming of the atmosphere. That makes perfect sense if you believe the premise.
Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. Making fossil fuel less affordable in order to make alternatives appear affordable makes everything, not just energy, more expensive for everyone. That in and of itself enriches the fossil fuel companies you seek to eliminate. It's a fools errand and does more harm than good.
"You also claim that skepticism is rooted in anti-intellectualism. I'm here as one of the regular folks to challenge you on that. Let's have a discussion of climate based upon real earth science, not political science." First, I object to your term "skepticism". Another standard trope from the world of climate denial. Skepticism, when used in scientific inquiry is a way of taking scientific findings to a high level, where it must pass muster among experts who have questions. Is the logic good? Where the experiments legit? Etc. But there is a point where legitimate skepticism ends and a consensus is reached. That has occurred for nearly all climate science today - did a long time ago. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Any contrarian views must now be subjected to "skepticism" from the scientific community. Including yours. See if it holds up. So far it has not. For the sake of the world, I hope such claims are right. But I think I know better. Follow the money. Second, I did not say that skepticism (I would correct that to say "contrarianism") is rooted in anti-intellectualism. It is a factor for sure, but I believe the real reason is greed and want of riches and power.
As for a discussion with you, I am not expert enough. And neither are you. And in the absence of true understanding, true expertise, it comes down to who do you trust. I trust climate science to reveal the true nature of what is happening to our atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning at a prodigious rate. You do not - you are on a different page. We are not going to get past that. So no thanks.
"Unless you are an earth scientist and knowledgeable in the mechanics of climate, then your belief in a climatological "point of no return" also relies upon faith." False - it does not rely upon faith. It relies upon scientific study of climate history, and our increasing understanding of the mechanisms involved in such a possibility. BTW - are you an earth scientist, steeped in the research where such concerns are coming from? If so, please educate me.
"Never in the history of the earth has it warmed anywhere near the point that it could not sustain humans." Go back far enough and most certainly the earth had an unsustainable climate. That aside, some form of human society can no doubt sustain nearly anything. So can cockroaches. The rest of our ecosystem as currently configured? Not so much. Look, Climate Science is not predicting a total Venusian meltdown - a range of scenarios are predicted and that range narrows the more the science advances. Inside that range however are scenarios where humankind sustains a shit ton of suffering. A world I don't want my progeny to live in and neither would you. Rising seas, failed ecosystems, mass extinction, flooded cities, mass migrations, ever increasing weather catastrophes, entire latitudes of earth largely unlivable (as some areas are already), more chance of world war likely nuclear, food shortages. Can humans live in it? Yes. Is the possibility worth just keepin' on keepin' on? I think not. It must be avoided.
"..the Earth has tended to be much cooler than today for much longer periods of time. Glaciers covered New York City for over 200,000 years in the last glacial advance. The current melt began about 20,000 years ago, and is expected to only last only for a short while, perhaps if we are lucky another 10,000 years. The entirety of civilization has developed during the last 10,000 years of glacial retreat. Humans and other creatures have thrived during this warmer and moister climate "vacation"." All true. However has nothing to do with current global warming trends, human caused. The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects. All that climate history you quote can be explained by astronomy and earth sciences, and has. We are in new territory with man-made global warming, which can trump the slow moving trends of the past, at least for the next few millenia.
"Regardless of whether or not you buy the argument of human caused climate catastrophe, the actions being proposed will be harmful to the poorest and most vulnerable more than anyone. " And that, for all reading this response, is one of the biggest excuses for doing nothing, presented by the climate denial community. Taken straight out of the Competitive Enterprise Institute playbook.
On the contrary, the effects of climate change will be (and currently is already) felt the most by the poor and vulnerable among us. Furthermore, this move away from fossil fuels can be done in such a way as to minimize human impacts. It is so very very unfortunate that this "gift" of oil in the ground, which is making life easier for (presumably) all of humanity, is in actuality, with the rate we are burning it, leading humanity to doom. But that is the case. Therefore, despite this claim, humanity must seek an alternate course, and soon. In the long run, the poor and vulnerable among us will benefit as well as all of humanity.
What we have here is a textbook example of a climate denialist. none of my arguments will have any effect at all, no matter how well supported by the science.
Look in the mirror "GandalfGrey" - who do you really stand for? The science is clear, and getting clearer. The motivations of the big oil companies is as clear as abell, especially with the revelations piling up WRT the decisions made in boardrooms. They have placed their profits over the fate of the world, and will continue to do so if not stopped. What is your motivation for continuing to deny it, at our peril? I'd really like to know.
You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?
"The point is that humankind's burning of fossil fuels is unprecedented in world history, except possibly ancient (millions upon millions of years ago) cataclysmic volcanic eruptions. Which by the way, strongly appear to have had significant and rapid climate effects."
Volcanic eruptions tend to cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight from reaching the surface. They also emit huge amounts of CO2, which if the climate change theory held water, should have caused warming once the haze cleared. That has not been the case. Most volcanic eruptions cause very rapid but short term climate effects and the climate quickly recovers to normal. It's water vapor and convection that are the primary drivers, and this action quickly corrects the short term temperature imbalance.
You may ask: "Why would the planet have a certain balanced range of temperature?" The reason is complex, but it has to do with our proximity to the sun, the total surface area of the planet, the density of the atmosphere and surface pressure (determined by mass of planet and volume of atmosphere).
A black body when warmed tends to radiate more heat than when it was cooler. How rapidly it radiates depends upon the surface area of the black body. The biggest factor which maintains a steady range of temperature on Earth, and not on Venus for example, is water vapor in the atmosphere. This is one reason that scientists look for solid, liquid and gaseous water when searching for distant planets which may inhabit life. The planet has to be the correct size, the correct distance from a star, and it must have water in three phases, solid, liquid and gas. The water is a transport mechanism for heat. When it is gaseous, it absorbs Infrared radiation coming from the ground like a blanket. Unlike a blanket though, it has many holes where convection carries the heat aloft and radiates it into space.
When you hear a climate scientist say that the "greenhouse gases" act like a blanket or greenhouse, they are giving you a climate change sales pitch. They know most people are ignorant enough to but the blanket image. Most climate scientists would never describe the atmosphere as a blanket or greenhouse. Neither has any opening for convection because they are designed to keep heat inside. The atmosphere is not like either one of them. It constantly circulates from low altitude to high altitude, carrying heat with it to be radiated into space. That action is what the climate models cannot adequately model. The modelers all admit this in the fine print.
Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation. No one knows what triggers either change, but this fairly regular cycle is observed in the geologic record. We are nearing the end of this warm cycle as we speak.
What will happen to civilization in the next deep glaciation no one can predict. Certainly our population will have to decline. The habitable zone will be dramatically decreased. Our energy needs will rise, because it's much harder to survive severe cold than severe heat. Food will become an issue.
If you still don't get the point about enjoying these favorable conditions while we have them, then I have little sympathy for you, and neither does science. It does not care one iota about how you feel. It will go on, we may not. In fact, most assuredly the sun will engulf the earth one day and humankind will cease to exist.
Make the best of the time you have, earth will be here long after we are gone. Enjoy the gifts she provides while you are here.
"You have already claimed that you are not qualified to discuss climate science. How then can you claim to know who is qualified?" Wait wait!! I know (holds up hand, waving frantically). As I stated earlier, I place my confidence and trust in the the world scientific community, and let the chips fall where they may. I like those odds. Over the years since science has established itself- it has a great record of explaining the natural world as it truly is. And has a great system for correcting things it got wrong. Compared to any other human-created group endeavour, including the world's religions, it is relatively corruption free and free of agendas. As opposed to - say - the scientists working for Exxon-Mobil. Or the National Baptist Convention.
Your treatise on black body radiation, and on the various intricacies of our atmosphere and its similarities (and not) to a "blanket" is interesting and seemingly well researched. However, the message loud and clear is that today's climate scientists don't know what they are talking about. That they are outright wrong, or at least that there is too much uncertainty in their fields to warrant any action or policy. That I reject out of hand, as should everyone. I believe any climate scientist worth his/her salt could take your arguments and summarily and politely refute them in ways I can only wish I could understand.
"Interestingly, what is not known at all, is why we have this odd cycle of 20,000 years of warming, then 200,000 years of deep glaciation." Are you suggesting that the well known Milankovitch cycle is not a cause of the ice age cycles the earth has gone through for the last few hundred thousand years? I thought that was pretty settled. What I believe you are suggesting is that since this ice age is so poorly understood, then other climate effects are equally poorly understood. Well no - I believe the ice age cycles are better understood than you suggest.
As for living well today while we an still do it - good god man. That is what this is all about. We are in danger of ruining it all in the near term - not 10000 years from now.