Climate Change

[Tigereye]

Rather than hijack the Delaware River threat discussion, I thought this should be a topic of its own. While reading news today, again was another headline. See link.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/explosion-antarctic-sea-ice-ice-age

Thus my skepticism of climate change.

Perhaps if the topic was not sensationalized by politically motivated players and organizations, the arguements would have more credibility. But with the continuation of doomsday predictions that are demonstrably wrong only hardens my resolve as a skeptic.

True science is almost by definition, reserved and narrow in focus. The sweeping extrapolation of various weather and climate data to support climate change for political or other reasons only hinders its acceptance in my view.

You know my view on the subject and I have offered various arguements in support it.

I think it is a good discussion to have provided we keep it civil as I know the topic is a sensitive one.

GO.....

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Tigereye wrote: Perhaps if the topic was not sensationalized by politically motivated players and organizations, the arguments would have more credibility.

Bingo! Politics is not science. Opinions are not science. Science is true whether you believe it or not.

The problem lies in the "belief" part of this issue and, possibly, in the amount of data climate scientists have to analyze.

I am a conservationist at heart (as I hope all on this board are), so I have a cognitive bias towards human-exacerbated climate change. Also, I am not very well versed in the sciences needed to sus out this issue.

Having said that, it seems to me if we rapidly combust fossil fuels that took millions of years to create AND we slash and burn the biggest CO2 recycling system on the planet (Amazon rainforest), bad outcomes are assured. Add to that the finite nature of fossil fuels and the contaminants that often are included in the fuel sources and you have significant negative effects on the environment. This means negative effects on our health. All this is magnified by our exploding population.

HERE is only one source of information that should be non-biased.

My opinion on this topic is this: If we are 100% wrong about this and the consequence is that we cleaned up our planet, is that bad?

 

[sgrim]

The article doesn't really say anything new. Climate science has long noted the importance of polar ice in maintaining energy balance. Less ice means more energy absorbed instead of reflected back. Increased greenhouse gasses trap the reflected heat energy and drive a feedback loop which accelerates melting & warming. The crux of the issue is the increase of the GG and whether one accepts science that demonstrates marked increase coinciding with our industrial revolution.
The article basically says their used to be more ice, and that ice had an effect on ocean currents. Modern climate science says that there is now less ice and that change has an (opposite) effect on ocean currents.

 

[jifigz]

So, that article is absolutely worthless. It says and addresses absolutely NOTHING about the current state of the world or what is going on. Read the "hidden text" at the bottom of the article, it even says that probably because they have to. But, you have to click "read more" to see it. And as far as being politically motivated you pulled an article from Fox News which is obviously extremely right wing and in denial of climate change. If you pulled an article from one of the other 3 major networks it would be biased towards the left and they would over sensationalizing it in the other extreme of it being a major catastrophe. So, an article that says nothing from a highly biased news channel is of zero quality to the true scientific community.

With that said, I neither support the left or the right and am very much a moderate. I like to do as much research as possible and be as informed as possible before drawing conclusions and making assumptions..

One other thing to note is this..written language has been around for thousands of years. Written language leads to documentation, science, record keeping, etc. A thermoscope was invented in the 1600's and then a thermometer later on. If you put the two together you can easily track trends and historical/scientific data. One theory right now describes that even if the Earth is, in general, warming that it may make certain areas of the earth colder than they currently are. This has to do with a change in ocean currents due to a decreased level of salinity.

 

[Tigereye]

The climate is changing, the earth is warming except for where it is cooling due to warming. Got it.

 

[tomgamber]

YES, AND YOU PUT TWO OF THE MOST DEADLY POISONS ON YOUR FOOD EVERY DAY. SODIUM AND CHLORINE. IF YOU'RE NOT CAPABLE OF THINKING PAST YOUR OUTSTRETCHED HAND, YOU WON'T EVER GET IT.

 

[Tigereye]

Thank you for the chemistry lesson. I would love to delve deeper with you. Perhaps we can start with the elements and their ions????

Now truth be told I have much less expertise in debating than chemistry, but I do recall from my debate classes that YELLING is one of the first signs someone is losing their arguement and using emotion rather than facts to win.

As said by someone I deeply admire, "facts don't care about your feelings"

 

[tomgamber]

we've all been thru the using caps at work thing. Some get all butt hurt over it. I don't care. Get over it.

Aaaanyway, the old its snowing here, so how can the planet be warming argument is even dumber than it sounds when deniers say it out loud. I used to chalk it up to those who assumed THEY were the center of the universe. Its become quite apparent the reason is ignorance and the inability to accept or even be open to any fact they don't already think they know.

The saddest part of all of this is that people think that this is all about who's right. That its about winning or losing an argument.

 

[jifigz]

Speaking of snowing, I believe we have a possibility of seeing some snow this weekend. Definitely rain by the looks of it, but possibly some snow too. Whatever kind of precipitation it is I hope it comes lightly and slowly and doesn't raise the streams/rivers too much. Just keeps them where they are or a touch higher.

 

[larkmark]

Fox news?

 

[sgrim]

Tigereye wrote:
Thank you for the chemistry lesson. I would love to delve deeper with you. Perhaps we can start with the elements and their ions????

Now truth be told I have much less expertise in debating than chemistry, but I do recall from my debate classes that YELLING is one of the first signs someone is losing their arguement and using emotion rather than facts to win.

As said by someone I deeply admire, "facts don't care about your feelings"

Tigereye - In all seriousness, what were you hoping to achieve by starting this thread of discussion? Are you hoping to debate the science? Debunk some mythology?
I think that it might be useful if those willing to participate in discussion offer up what they consider to be valid sources of information. In other words, where do you go for details that inform your perspective on the matter of climate change?
I'll go first:
- Some academic background in biology & chemistry in my youth and a keen interest in outdoors has kept me eager to read up on the matter for almost 40 years; this would include numerous books, journals, magazines, etc both in the mainstream and deep in the stacks.
- currently a frequent reader of the works of Drs Michael Mann, Peter Gleich and Katherine Hayhoe
- I consider NOAA to be a reputable source of data; https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813/
- the 4th National Climate Assessment is compelling: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov
- https://climatecentral.org/ includes links to current research and various related articles.

If you're expecting something else, let's go there.

sjg

 

[Tigereye]

If you read my first post, my objective was to move climate change discussions from the Delaware River Threats thread to a thread of its own so as not to Hijack that thread. It looked like that's where it was going.

As for myself I have BS degrees in Biology and Chemistry and have spend 35 years of my career in the environmental field.

I deal with regulations every day. Some are good and have dramatically positive effects on the environment. Others are just feel good efforts that give politicians talking points. The money effort and manpower spent on administrative compliance that has ZERO impact on our streams, air, and land resources is mindboggling.

I am not that naive to think that there are organizations out there that do not bow to political or monetary influence. They all do. From our trusted EPA, PADEP, to Greenpeace, NOAA and the rest of the alphabet soup that is our Govt.

Global warming, climate change, anthropomormophic climate change, or whatever the next iteration of the movement is called is no different. It is being driven by politicians and money. There have been numerous contradictions by the so called experts that I for one do not believe the science is completely understood. New findings everyday. Thus my skepticism.

Water is a greater global warmer than CO2 though less persistent in the atmosphere. It is difficult to call water a bad guy as it is a commonly known compound world wide. Carbon Dioxide is an "evil chemical". Emphasis mine.

This will be my last post as I doubt I will change any minds. I thought it would be a civil discussion but alas it was getting testy there.

For now let just agree that clean water and abundant trout are everyone's goals.

 

[jifigz]

There is no need for anyone to be testy about anything. July 2019 was globally the hottest month ever recorded. October 2019 was globally the hottest October ever recorded. It may have only ousted the previous records by fractions of a degree but still. Our trout are doing better than ever thanks to clean water. We still have a ton of water that will remain cold enough for trout. Browns can handle some serious water temps anyways, imo.

 

[Mike]

Jifigz,
Trout in Pa are doing better due to cleaner water in some cases, most notably in Pa's mining regions and downstream from those regions. Trout are also doing better, ironocally, due to cooler water temps brought on by improved shade associated with changes in land use. I have also read that vegetation, not all of it desirable, is expected to be more dense in the future due to a warmer climate.

 

[jifigz]

Yes, there are many reasons why our trout are thriving. We need to reduce sedimentation by having more stream bank vegetation in agricultural areas, but good luck getting most farmers to comply. We could use more shade on many of our streams in general. Pair these things with cleaner water and our wild trout aren't going anywhere soon. I am blessed to live in an area with an extremely high abundance of wild trout water and I'm very grateful for it.

 

[sgrim]

Thanks Tiger - No need for us to be testy, and I apologize if I came across as hostile. We're coming from the same place on a desire to keep our waters clean and our trout healthy.
I share some of your cynicism about political motivations hijacking the topic for personal gains. I also see a tremendous amount of disinformation and half-truths coming out of the Denier crowd, and amplified by those with special interests.
For instance - there are misleading facts about the amount of industry-sourced GG in the atmosphere that bounce around the echo chamber everyday.Blogs cite blogs who cite misinterpretations of articles which summarize one data point from an academic study. Suddenly we're told by some expert on YouTube that there is no measurable warming and any rise in CO2 is because of cows. Even your statement about H20 vs. CO2 is true in a sense, but ignores the aspect of the feedback loop, initiated by rising C02, which drives that increase in water vapor. Yeah, we have warming seas, warming air holds more water vapor, and the cycle continues.
In general, anytime we hear facts & figures we should be questioning the source, the completeness of the information and motivation. It's exhausting but necessary.

 

[3sip]

When denier is used in relation to any science I think of 2 quotes

"Science does not aim at establishing immutable truths and eternal dogmas; its aim is to approach the truth by successive approximations, without claiming that at any stage final and complete accuracy has been achieved."
Bertrand Russell
British philosopher

"Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindliness in favor of systematic hatred."
Bertrand Russell
British philosopher

 

[afishinado]

Here is an article with info to be discussed at the latest international climate control talks to take place next week >

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-carbon.html

 

[Fly-Swatter]

3sip: Great quotes!

 

[tomgamber]

Just something I saw today:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=db676999a2-briefing-dy-20191205&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-db676999a2-43961237