Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

I've followed the Climate Change debate for about 15 years. I've continued to hold an open mind to alternate theories. My belief, and I've said it here many times, is that climate science has been hijacked by climate politics.

Here is a fascinating article on how thunderstorm clouds increase exponentially over the ocean beginning when water temperature exceeds 26 degrees C (78.8 F). Unfortunately, the article is very long, but the bottom line is that as ocean water temp increases to over 26 degrees C, cloud formation creates a negative feedback loop.

Another paper (linked after this one) posits that temperature increased from 1950-1987 due to ENSO, increased from 1987 to 1997 due to decreases in cloud cover, and slowed from 1997 to present due to mixed cloud cover.

tl;dr

Cloud formation is complex and not fully understood. A minor change in global cloud cover could account for all the warming seen since leaving the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. As a result, I remain in the "not convinced" category on CAGW.

https://www.academia.edu/1097984/The_thunderstorm_thermostat_hypothesis_How_clouds_and_thunderstorms_control_the_Earths_temperature

https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=50837

One doesn't have to be convinced necessarily.

The question should also ask, what are the consequences if you are wrong.

Like most sane people, I hedge my bets.

1) There is man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves

2) There is man made climate change -> we don't act, we all die.

3) There is no man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves anyway.

4) There is no man made climate change -> we don't act, we've not lost much.

So really, what are the consequences of acting, cleaning our pollution, lesson carbon footprint etc...or do people think these are actually good things, to increase pollution, carbon etc...?

Maybe... wrote:

One doesn't have to be convinced necessarily.

The question should also ask, what are the consequences if you are wrong.

Like most sane people, I hedge my bets.

1) There is man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves

2) There is man made climate change -> we don't act, we all die.

3) There is no man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves anyway.

4) There is no man made climate change -> we don't act, we've not lost much.

So really, what are the consequences of acting, cleaning our pollution, lesson carbon footprint etc...or do people think these are actually good things, to increase pollution, carbon etc...?

We already are doing those things and have been for decades. Nobody is pro pollution.

And we aren’t the problem. China, India and other shithole countries do the bulk of the polluting. Focus on the biggest problems.

Maybe... wrote:

One doesn't have to be convinced necessarily.

The question should also ask, what are the consequences if you are wrong.

Like most sane people, I hedge my bets.

1) There is man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves

2) There is man made climate change -> we don't act, we all die.

3) There is no man made climate change -> we act, stuff improves anyway.

4) There is no man made climate change -> we don't act, we've not lost much.

So really, what are the consequences of acting, cleaning our pollution, lesson carbon footprint etc...or do people think these are actually good things, to increase pollution, carbon etc...?

This is a great question!

And your response is reasoned in that we have potential actions and potential consequences. Where we diverge is

1. If CAGW exists and we act, what should we do about it?

2. If CAGW exists and we don't act, what happens?

Let's assume CAGW exists and we don't act, we're not all going to die if sea-level rise increases and temperatures increase. Humans will adapt. If a 5-degree increase in temperature was fatal, everyone who moved from Wisconsin to Florida would die immediately. As sea level gradually rises, populations will move inland... as they have always done. Humans adapt. Technology will continue to advance. Crop production is increasing due to warmer weather, improved breeds of crops, and more CO2.

Meanwhile, the trillions of dollars the IPCC wants to get to line the pockets of politicians and their cronies would far better be spent on saving lives NOW... better water, more alternative energy research, less air pollution (we're looking at you, China), less plastics in the ocean (we're looking at you, Southeast Asia).

Ok sure, maybe it's a bit extreme to say 'we all die', so let's rephrase it.

How many people are we willing to let die due to inaction, before it gets to a state where we act (current estimates are we are already killing 300,000 per year) ?

I'd also say act on what you can, that's our responsibility. I think it's flawed to not act because others don't act.

You act, even make an economy of it, and others will follow (especially for example if you weren't to trade with 'dirty' countries.

But anyway, it feels a bit loose to ignore the U.S, eg

2nd country in the list. Do you decide not to act because one person bigger than you didn't ?

The issues are of fact, not "belief" - which is a term more appropriate to religion. The overwhelming preponderance of international scientific assessment is that we are facing a crisis induced by man. Choosing to quote opinion - "scientific" or otherwise - that differs with that message is about as credible as questioning Darwin, when only creationists, religious fundamentalists and the plain ignorant don't accept the fact of evolution.

That says “Americas” meaning North and South America... two continents combined still do not equal the one country of China...

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issues are of fact, not "belief" - which is a term more appropriate to religion. The overwhelming preponderance of international scientific assessment is that we are facing a crisis induced by man. Choosing to quote opinion - "scientific" or otherwise - that differs with that message is about as credible as questioning Darwin, when only creationists, religious fundamentalists and the plain ignorant don't accept the fact of evolution.

Not a crisis! Only alarmists make such ridiculous comments.

Not caused by man! Only narcissists think we have such power.

I retract that statement after clicking on the article. The legend of the pie chart threw me off.

Clearly the Devil is hedging his bets. Unlimited fossil fuels are sure to destroy us, but he gave us a few extraordinary sellouts like trump to hasten the process & make it harder to reverse.

Maybe... wrote:

Ok sure, maybe it's a bit extreme to say 'we all die', so let's rephrase it.

How many people are we willing to let die due to inaction, before it gets to a state where we act (current estimates are we are already killing 300,000 per year) ?

I'd also say act on what you can, that's our responsibility. I think it's flawed to not act because others don't act.

This is another statistic that is misinterpreted. The WHO estimates that 250,000 more people will die each year from 2030 to 2050 due to climate change. However, the WHO breaks this down as follows: 38 000 due to heat exposure in elderly people, 48 000 due to diarrhoea, 60 000 due to malaria, and 95 000 due to childhood undernutrition. Other than heat exposure among the elderly, these problems are only marginally related to climate change. They're more causally related to clean water, affordable energy, medicine and food.

We should be addressing all four of these causes directly now instead of trying to adjust the world's thermostat in 2050.

Another follow-up study found that deaths due to extreme/moderate cold exceeds deaths due to extreme/moderate heat by a ratio of 7 to 1. I.e., if it gets hotter, the number of deaths due moderate/extreme temperature will decline.

One of my pet peeves with climate change is ethanol production, which continues to exist due to extensive lobbying in spite of the fact that ethanol is no longer needed to supplement our energy needs. About 40% of the US corn crop every year goes to produce ethanol. That's enough food calories to feed about 800 million people every year!

The Devil’s biggest worry is that we might grow a conscience, not science, and realize that destroying Mother Earth is just wrong.

Yes. Of course! And over population.

Actually, the large blue one is just the U.S, if you click on the graph.

Irrespective of that, it's a rubbish argument to say you shouldn't do something because someone bigger than you doesn't do it.

Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate “forcing,” because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth’s surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

Source -

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issues are of fact, not "belief" - which is a term more appropriate to religion. The overwhelming preponderance of international scientific assessment is that we are facing a crisis induced by man. Choosing to quote opinion - "scientific" or otherwise - that differs with that message is about as credible as questioning Darwin, when only creationists, religious fundamentalists and the plain ignorant don't accept the fact of evolution.

No belief, but faith. Faith is the most important quality in this discussion. Most importantly, faith in God and faith in The President. I believe that faith is far more important than facts.

#FeelingsOverFacts

Absolutely no! I believe that man, in principle, depends on nature and only it can change something. More often nature changes a person than he does it. Moreover, climate is an uncontrollable thing.

Here is some science on the interplay of C02 and water vapor

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

the shill wrote:

I am Sam wrote:... in this case, we could simply do some research, lots of reading, or believe the science now, like it has always helped us improve civilisation, or we could just wait a long while to see what will happen in 100 years...

I asked a serious question and you gave me a cute, dismissive answer?

I am a scientist (of sorts; I am paid for my advice on matters in a specific topic of natural sciences - not climate - at any rate) and have devoted some considerable mental energy to the understanding of this topic. I remain unsatisfied by hand-waving like you've just done and am hungry for a legitimate examination of causation, as I have not come across one. Maybe a more serious contributor like Citizen Runner has one at hand?

I was really appreciative of your post, however it was past midnight down under, and as you are a scientist, I thought you would 'get' the microwave analogy.

The point is, that through all of the scientific advances, we just accept the knowledge and technology.

We drive our car, use our iPhone, go to the doctor for treatment , get an MRI scan, etc and do not ask to understand the scientific basis behind the technology.

If we are lying in the operating theatre ready to have your chest cleaved open for a quadruple bypass because of 90% widow maker blockage, we are not going to say "Wait Doc, I am not convinced, I have heard several medics that do not support this procedure"

I don't think so.

So why , with Climate Change, a field that has several streams of science converging to cover the scientific basis, understanding and research, are we saying; "Wait, I don't believe man is doing this...temperatures have risen before...many scientists have refuted this blah blah, I want to understand 'how' it is possible that CO2 is doing this"??

We do that because:

a) We have to make changes to our way of life.

b) We can't 'see' the problem

c) We won't be around to see the effects if it is true

Mostly a) due to selfishness, but supported by western govts and Oil cartel countries that want to stay on top of the economic pile.

I will post a separate post on basic chemistry/physics behind CO2 and GW