Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

[VanDeBank]

they faked scientific data before because someone paid them but it’s not relevant? You’re pretty special man

It's not, because it doesn't prove or disprove the model anthropogenic climate science. How is this a difficult concept to grasp?

You took that too personally, unless you work for the oil industry or someone lobbying for them? I’m not casting aspersions about your motivations.

I just find it really telling that companies who’ve put the brakes on climate science for so long, and who’ve used scientists whose job it is to do studies specifically to muddy the waters and who have a track record working for the tobacco industry, now aren’t even trying. If they had the science that says their industry is not significantly harmful to the climate they would be clinging to it.

I’m not a scientist, so numbers and data aren’t my forté. Use that as a stick to hit me with if you like, I just know I’ve talked to people way smarter than me studying this field specifically, and I’d have to be stupid to think I know more than them. What they tell me about how they’ve worked these things out showed me it was way more comprehensively substantiated than I imagined.

I didn't take that personally at all. Most people are capable of thinking critically if they choose to do so, and having a degree does not what make you spout more sensible.

Man-made global warming was in primary textbooks here, as early as the late nineties, so I accepted it and move on like with most things I was taught. The people that I've met that made me re-examine from my uni days onwards are some of the smartest people I've met, including a plant scientist, a geologist and my wife, a climate scientist (go figure).

Strong evidence for a causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature should be a minimum requirement before our governments turn the economy upside down, especially with the geological record showing CO2 levels at damn near the lowest levels they have ever been right now, coinciding with a relatively cold climate (ie it's frequently been warmer with less atmospheric CO2 throughout history).

 

[Eriku]

I didn't take that personally at all. Most people are capable of thinking critically if they choose to do so, and having a degree does not what make you spout more sensible.

Not that it’s a major point, but you called it a thinly veiled insult, so clearly you did take it as if I was having a pop at your character. And I know a degree doesn’t necessarily make what you say sensible. I’m not awe-struck by a degree or anything.

Man-made global warming was in primary textbooks here, as early as the late nineties, so I accepted it and move on like with most things I was taught. The people that I've met that made me re-examine from my uni days onwards are some of the smartest people I've met, including a plant scientist, a geologist and my wife, a climate scientist (go figure).

Strong evidence for a causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature should be a minimum requirement before our governments turn the economy upside down, especially with the geological record showing CO2 levels at damn near the lowest levels they have ever been right now, coinciding with a relatively cold climate (ie it's frequently been warmer with less atmospheric CO2 throughout history).

Yeah, climate change was in my text books too. Interesting about the mrs. Part of me would like to see her and my ex have at it about this subject

No doubt you will have heard any of the retorts I would offer to points in the last paragraph, and then we’re into a back-and-forth that I’m not really looking to get into, so I’ll leave that if you don’t mind.

 

[Cheimoon]

Strong evidence for a causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature should be a minimum requirement before our governments turn the economy upside down, especially with the geological record showing CO2 levels at damn near the lowest levels they have ever been right now, coinciding with a relatively cold climate (ie it's frequently been warmer with less atmospheric CO2 throughout history).

How is there no strong causal relationship? Climate scientists can explain very precisely how higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to higher average global temperature. What's controversial about that?

Or are you claiming that CO2 is not necessarily the only thing that can cause this sort of temperature increase? Cause of course, that's true. Average global temperature has changed significantly over the eons, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean, though, that CO2 can't be the reason right now.

Given the overwhelming consensus among climate scientist about current climate change being anthropogenic, and the commonly accepted, straightforward explanation for the general mechanism of current climate change (i.e., how greenhouse gases fuel it) - where's your evidence to the contrary? Cause given this consensus, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Andersonson]

So one of the big issues coming with respect to climate change is the whole problem of climate refugees. There will without any doubt be large numbers of people wanting to move or having to move because of problems with the climate making their historic homelands very difficult to live in.
We already see the conflict that arrises when people are moving to seek a better life or to escape oppression in many parts of the world. That sort of conflict and resistance to an influx of peoples is going to get far worse in the coming decades and century.
However people like you while in one moment are saying people shouldnt live somewhere in the first place are in the second breath minimising the issues of climate change "are not as bad as portrayed" completely missing the point that human migration is going to be a major cause of conflict and also humanitarian relief.
Its mind boggling people like you can minimise something that is very clearly beginning to happen right before our eyes and very clearly going to become a major problem in the worlds geopolitical outlook.

Issues of climate change "are not as bad as portrayed" is a belief of profound ignorance.

BTW should we care? Well I for one hope that my childrens grandchildren can live a life as effortless and enjoyable as mine as been. I dont understand how people can not care about future generations.

Well I just watched the biggest scientific research done on the subject in Norway and he says that media and other outlets have been using words that are over the top. As it stands and with 2-3 degrees more it isn't a disaster waiting to happen.
Of course it can create situations that are bad in certain parts of the world, but they would come anyways, they just come sooner.

However if we don't reduce emissions and we continue far above the targets set we are in a situation where thing might go really fecked.

Many countries have since the 80' s and possibly sooner been using up the resources in the region and water levels have now gone to minimum. We will be in a situation where countries will have water shortage and therefore mass migrations will happen. But those would have happened anyways. There have never been enough resources there for sustainable living. We need to take care of those people, and fast.

I ain't denying climate change at all, but as of yet and with how things are going it ain't a 'disaster' in the making. It's a problem

 

[Andersonson]

I do sort of get the point you were making, but this exact statement is nonsense. That's like saying people arguably shouldn't be living in Norway either, because the gulf stream might get disrupted and we'll all freeze to death. The populations of Norway and Mauritania are very similar as well.

It might come a time when Norway is inhabitable, but it's centuries at least before it's a problem. In west Sahara it has been a problem for decades.

This will go on and people will need to move if look long long ahead.

 

[That'sHernandez]

The CO2 levels were lower 2 million years when it was 10 degrees warmer in that part of Greenland. You said higher in your post (if I'm understanding you correctly)

The timescale of co2 increase really is not relevant, because we know its been colder coinciding with far higher CO2 levels.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. There is no causal relationship between co2 levels and temperature based on the geological record, which is why it's not referenced by proponents of anthropogenic climate change.

Their reasoning is literally: "we have no explanation other than the increase in co2", but that line of reasoning isn't valid in the absence of a good understanding of climate and temperature. All their predictions have been off (sea level changes, polar ice, weather, take your pick) and so much of what regulates the climate, such as the milankovitch cycles is not fully understood.

Saying "we dont know yet ie our field could have very little value in the short term" just doesn't get the attention or the funding the alarmists are getting "our field will save humanity from the greatest threat ever".

Contrast their model that hasn't made a single accurate prediction about anything, with the model of evolution that has made accurate predictions across the natural sciences for over 150 years and you'll quickly realize how little this shit has to with actual science.

Just to repeat, 30 years ago ago these clowns said it would be 5-10 degrees warmer now than it actually is because of rising co2. (Ironically, predicting no increase in temperature would have been a far more accurate prediction) and people want to do what these geniuses tell us.

1. There is a causal relationship between CO2 (and other greenhouse gases, such was methane and water vapour) and increased temperatures. The early Paleogene is being intensely studied because that is the last time CO2 levels were at the levels our current models predict they will be and the climate was characterised as greenhouse conditions.

2. Another causal relationship is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases put out by the Deccan Traps is now believed to be one of the causes of the K-T mass extinction (the one that killed the dinosaurs) in addition to a meteorite impact.

What do you know about milankovitch cycles? Because I can tell you they are pretty well understood, they are clearly identifiable in the geological record and they are as predictable as the planets orbiting the Sun.

What's more it's not just CO2 and other greenhouse gases that is the issue. The oceans draw down the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is leading to ocean acidification and the destruction of huge swathes of habitats, such as coral reefs. As oceans acidify, the amount of carbon that can be drawn down from the atmosphere will reduce; what's more is as oceans acidify carbon fixing organisms such as phytoplankton and zooplankton populations collapse as they then have to work harder to create their calcium carbonate shells. In turn that will cause whole sections of the oceanic foodweb to collapse. These changes will not be reversed for around 200,000 years because that is how long it takes for the oceans to cycle the water.

 

[Buster15]

How is there no strong causal relationship? Climate scientists can explain very precisely how higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to higher average global temperature. What's controversial about that?

Or are you claiming that CO2 is not necessarily the only thing that can cause this sort of temperature increase? Cause of course, that's true. Average global temperature has changed significantly over the eons, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean, though, that CO2 can't be the reason right now.

Given the overwhelming consensus among climate scientist about current climate change being anthropogenic, and the commonly accepted, straightforward explanation for the general mechanism of current climate change (i.e., how greenhouse gases fuel it) - where's your evidence to the contrary? Cause given this consensus, the burden of proof is on you.

Extremely well put.
It would be lovely wouldn't it if humans could pump out as much greenhouse gases as they choose with impunity. That in some way, out fragile ecosystem could somehow dispose of it discreetly without it having any effect on the air we breathe or the oceans we use as a rubbish bin.
Or wouldn't it be convenient if the global scientific community suddenly told us that for decades they have been totally wrong. And that we could stop worrying about man made climate change.

But as any right minded person knows, it is us humans who by our profligate nature are trashing our home.
And that has to stop.

 

[Balljy]

Well I just watched the biggest scientific research done on the subject in Norway and he says that media and other outlets have been using words that are over the top. As it stands and with 2-3 degrees more it isn't a disaster waiting to happen.
Of course it can create situations that are bad in certain parts of the world, but they would come anyways, they just come sooner.

However if we don't reduce emissions and we continue far above the targets set we are in a situation where thing might go really fecked.

Many countries have since the 80' s and possibly sooner been using up the resources in the region and water levels have now gone to minimum. We will be in a situation where countries will have water shortage and therefore mass migrations will happen. But those would have happened anyways. There have never been enough resources there for sustainable living. We need to take care of those people, and fast.

I ain't denying climate change at all, but as of yet and with how things are going it ain't a 'disaster' in the making. It's a problem

I think saying "As it stands and with 2-3 degrees more it isn't a disaster waiting to happen" is a bit of an understatement when you look at places like Manila which has the densest population in the world with an estimated population in the entire area of around 21 million and built at sea level. Based on some predictions, the entire population would have to move which would certainly fall under the disaster category.

 

[WPMUFC]

once again I'm absolutely baffled how people (person) can be so confident to say things about scientific topics and then act like they are the first person to ever utter them. Then in the process of spouting said verbal diarrhoea genuinely believe decades of science has never attempted to answer these questions. Or if they get too embarrassed, as seems to be happening in here, just go straight into "Alex Jones Mode".

Holy feck.

News articles, journal articles, tweets from reputable sources that are on-topic, and for the love of christ just block the nutter and lets move on.

 

[Cheimoon]

Extremely well put.
It would be lovely wouldn't it if humans could pump out as much greenhouse gases as they choose with impunity. That in some way, out fragile ecosystem could somehow dispose of it discreetly without it having any effect on the air we breathe or the oceans we use as a rubbish bin.
Or wouldn't it be convenient if the global scientific community suddenly told us that for decades they have been totally wrong. And that we could stop worrying about man made climate change.

But as any right minded person knows, it is us humans who by our profligate nature are trashing our home.
And that has to stop.

I guess that, at heart, the issue here is the usual geological one: the earth has gone through lots of different global temperature situations, why worry about this one?

But then no-one said we're destroying the earth. (Or who did wasn't right.) Cause we're not. Whatever we do, the earth will go on. Even full nuclear destruction wouldn't destroy the actual planet as such, some life would survive (and a lot in the oceans), and eventually radiation levels would subside and proper regeneration of life would commence.

Instead, the issue is that current global warming will be extremely damaging to human life as we've developed it. Significant portions of habitable areas and agricultural lands will be drowned or rendered useless (again, to us), which will come at enormous cost of hardship, lives, and money, and set in motion strife (wars) that will cause more of that. (And for those who care, it will also significantly alter nature and ecosystems, and will make many species go extinct. But I'm focusing on the human angle here.)

That's why global warming is an enormous issue. Not because we're damaging the planet in a way that's never happened in geological history.

 

[Tarrou]

It's not, because it doesn't prove or disprove the model anthropogenic climate science. How is this a difficult concept to grasp?

there is a massive delta between what is relevant in this debate and what can prove or disprove anthropogenic climate change

in fact, almost everything involved in the debate in isolation exists within that delta

for example, the mean global temperatures increasing for 100 years or so doesn't prove or disprove anything in isolation either..

it's certainly relevant though

 

[Buster15]

It's not, because it doesn't prove or disprove the model anthropogenic climate science. How is this a difficult concept to grasp?


I didn't take that personally at all. Most people are capable of thinking critically if they choose to do so, and having a degree does not what make you spout more sensible.

Man-made global warming was in primary textbooks here, as early as the late nineties, so I accepted it and move on like with most things I was taught. The people that I've met that made me re-examine from my uni days onwards are some of the smartest people I've met, including a plant scientist, a geologist and my wife, a climate scientist (go figure).

Strong evidence for a causal relationship between CO2 levels and temperature should be a minimum requirement before our governments turn the economy upside down, especially with the geological record showing CO2 levels at damn near the lowest levels they have ever been right now, coinciding with a relatively cold climate (ie it's frequently been warmer with less atmospheric CO2 throughout history).

I have read your post and am interested to hear what was it that those really smart people you mentioned said to convince you that climate change is not man made.
Or that the climate is in fact not changing.
Genuine question.

 

[Cheimoon]

Just FYI for everyone writing here that it looks like she won't be able to respond for a while. Hope she'll use that time to read up on the causal relationship between CO2 and global warming. Here are some good links to start reading:

RealClimate: The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

RealClimate.org is anyway a great site. It has numerous articles digging into common contrarian arguments, as well as many other primers (see RealClimate: Index), plus they follow scientific developments closely. The writers are generally climate scientists and refer to the actual articles behind their comments - really helpful if you're actually interested in the science of the subject.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Just FYI for everyone writing here that it looks like she won't be able to respond for a while.

Demoted?

 

[Cheimoon]

Demoted?

No, banned. It makes a profile look like that. Don't know if it's temporary or permanent. (You can see the warning in post #3283.)

 

[nimic]

No, banned. It makes a profile look like that. Don't know if it's temporary or permanent. (You can see the warning in post #3283.)

I don't think non-scouts/modmins can see the stripe through the name, or the warning.

 

[Cheimoon]

I don't think non-scouts/modmins can see the stripe through the name, or the warning.

You can see the warning and its reason (I tried, I can even see it when not logged in), but not the severity or that a user is banned.

 

[Stack]

For anyone needing a fantastic resource on all things climate change then take a look through this site.
https://www.realclimate.org/

I have followed it since it first started up about 20 years ago.
There are archives on the site where everything is kept going back to 2004. It did start up before then but thats a decent library of information to work through.
Its open and run by scientists and runs robust discussions on all scientific papers.
Its also searchable and you have a good chance of finding answers to many questions as well as coherent explanations of the science involved and any issues, controversies or mistakes made and found.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

 

[Tarrou]

was really looking forward to what the plant scientist had to say about all this too

 

[Cheimoon]

For anyone needing a fantastic resource on all things climate change then take a look through this site.
https://www.realclimate.org/

I have followed it since it first started up about 20 years ago.
There are archives on the site where everything is kept going back to 2004. It did start up before then but thats a decent library of information to work through.
Its open and run by scientists and runs robust discussions on all scientific papers.
Its also searchable and you have a good chance of finding answers to many questions as well as coherent explanations of the science involved and any issues, controversies or mistakes made and found.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Ha, exaclty what I posted five posts above! I used to read quite a bit on that website a decade ago or so. I stopped cause it takes too much time and I don't need to know climate science in that kind of detail; but yeah, awesome website. All very accessibly written as well, not the sort of deep jargon and impenetrable writing that you'll often find from scientists.

 

[golden_blunder]

If the earth is flat, can’t we just tilt it a bit and run the excess water off?

 

[Cheimoon]

was really looking forward to what the plant scientist had to say about all this too

I was more interested in the climate scientist actually. According to the Wiki on the scientific consensus on climate change (link), "A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors." So I'd be quite curious what her wife said exactly, or whether she maybe actually misunderstood it. (I mean, the link between greenhouses gasses and warming is so well understood that I just can't imagine an actual climate scientist to question that mechanism.)

 

[Stack]

Ha, exaclty what I posted five posts above! I used to read quite a bit on that website a decade ago or so. I stopped cause it takes too much time and I don't need to know climate science in that kind of detail; but yeah, awesome website. All very accessibly written as well, not the sort of deep jargon and impenetrable writing that you'll often find from scientists.

ha shit sorry i didnt see your post!
Yeah you are right it just takes up so much time to work through. the one important thing I did learn is they werent afraid to tackle the difficult questions and answer with coherent understandable and well thought out answers so i have learned to trust them.

 

[Cheimoon]

ha shit sorry i didnt see your post!
Yeah you are right it just takes up so much time to work through. the one important thing I did learn is they werent afraid to tackle the difficult questions and answer with coherent understandable and well thought out answers so i have learned to trust them.

Yeah, and they also won't shy away from explaining what's still unknown or unclear, or where modelling is incomplete and uncertain.

 

[Tarrou]

I was more interested in the climate scientist actually. According to the Wiki on the scientific consensus on climate change (link), "A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors." So I'd be quite curious what her wife said exactly, or whether she maybe actually misunderstood it. (I mean, the link between greenhouses gasses and warming is so well understood that I just can't imagine an actual climate scientist to question that mechanism.)

well yeah, it would be great to have a well informed and sincere contrarian viewpoint on this topic

but so far it’s just been the same old disengenous nonsense with zero substance.. which is always disappointing

I would go as far as saying I haven’t seen one credible scientist with a contrarian viewpoint.. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, and I don’t think it is, but I’ve yet to come across one until now

anyone know of one?

 

[Cheimoon]

well yeah, it would be great to have a well informed and sincere contrarian viewpoint on this topic

but so far it’s just been the same old disengenous nonsense with zero substance.. which is always disappointing

I would go as far as saying I haven’t seen one credible scientist with a contrarian viewpoint.. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, and I don’t think it is, but I’ve yet to come across one until now

anyone know of one?

Me neither - and I think the point here is that those people no longer seem to exist, just because the basic foundations of the scientific understanding of current climate change are just very solid. Obviously, people still disagree on lots of details, but I don't think there's much merit left in questioning the basic idea of current, anthropogenic climate change.

But yeah, I'd also be interested in seeing what proper counter-arguments remain!

(And to be honest, I'd love them to be true. Wouldn't everyone want climate change to not be real? That's what I don't get about some contrarians, who seem to think people will deny their views just because they're so invested in the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Who could possibly actually want that to be true though!)

 

[Buster15]

I was more interested in the climate scientist actually. According to the Wiki on the scientific consensus on climate change (link), "A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors." So I'd be quite curious what her wife said exactly, or whether she maybe actually misunderstood it. (I mean, the link between greenhouses gasses and warming is so well understood that I just can't imagine an actual climate scientist to question that mechanism.)

Wow. Between 99% and 100%.
I am amazed but of course not at all surprised.
I say amazed simply because with all the vested interests at play, that almost unanimous concurrence really doesn't leave any doubt at all.
Even the Big Bang has nothing like that acceptance.

 

[Buster15]

If the earth is flat, can’t we just tilt it a bit and run the excess water off?

Are you suggesting that it isn't flat????
Damn.

 

[Wibble]

And being entirely misrepresented because the time it took for CO2 to be higher than current levels 2 million years ago occurred over thousands, if not hundreds thousands of years. Not 1-2 centuries as it is now, which is the real issue.

We know there has previously been warmer climate and more CO2 in the atmosphere, that is why these studies are being carried out: So we can understand how nature reacts to these changes.

Speed of change and how it affects our life on earth is the real issue. I'm not that concerned that we will kill all life unless we blow ourselves up perhaps, just ours.

Anyone who denies that it is happening and extremely serious shouldn't be allowed to breed in case their idiocy is heritable.

 

[Wibble]

Wow. Between 99% and 100%.
I am amazed but of course not at all surprised.
I say amazed simply because with all the vested interests at play, that almost unanimous concurrence really doesn't leave any doubt at all.
Even the Big Bang has nothing like that acceptance.

I used to be a scientist and many of my friends are still scientists, in many cases very senior academics. Not one of them doubt the cause of climate change and find opinions to the contrary laughably stupid.

We have a huge correlation between greehousecgas emmisions and levels and we have a very well known mechanism causing that change. The same mechanism thst warmed us up to allow life to develop.

And then we have Bob from the internet who has access to nonsense on YouTube, that gives him wood, and some Exxon shares. Feck off Bob you moron.

 

[That'sHernandez]

Speed of change and how it affects our life on earth is the real issue. I'm not that concerned that we will kill all life unless we blow ourselves up perhaps, just ours.

Anyone who denies that it is happening and extremely serious shouldn't be allowed to breed in case their idiocy is heritable.

It’s not at all difficult to understand really is it?

I have come to the conclusion the biggest failing of climate change communication is the framing of it being an existential threat to the planet as opposed to an existential threat to the human race; people might be more inclined to get behind making the necessary changes if they realised it was their own survival at stake. The planet was here long before we were and will still be here, with different organisms living on in, long after we have gone.

 

[Tarrou]

It’s not at all difficult to understand really is it?

I have come to the conclusion the biggest failing of climate change communication is the framing of it being an existential threat to the planet as opposed to an existential threat to the human race; people might be more inclined to get behind making the necessary changes if they realised it was their own survival at stake. The planet was here long before we were and will still be here, with different organisms living on in, long after we have gone.

why would that make much difference though?

If we manage to wipe ourselves out we’re likely taking 90%+ of the species with us anyway

in fact we’re already wiping out loads of species and it isn’t slowing down capitalism at all

 

[That'sHernandez]

why would that make much difference though?

If we manage to wipe ourselves out we’re likely taking 90%+ of the species with us anyway

in fact we’re already wiping out loads of species and it isn’t slowing down capitalism at all

Because the people who don’t care about the environment care about themselves, so appeal to that selfishness.

Animals will bounce back and new species will evolve.

 

[Tarrou]

Because the people who don’t care about the environment care about themselves, so appeal to that selfishness.

Animals will bounce back and new species will evolve.

I don't really follow the logic. An existential threat to the planet includes themselves, obviously.

I think people just don't worry/care about long-term threats because they are too wrapped up in their own problems and short-term goals. It's just human nature. A rebrand of "the problem" won't change anything.

 

[RedC]

well yeah, it would be great to have a well informed and sincere contrarian viewpoint on this topic

but so far it’s just been the same old disengenous nonsense with zero substance.. which is always disappointing

I would go as far as saying I haven’t seen one credible scientist with a contrarian viewpoint.. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, and I don’t think it is, but I’ve yet to come across one until now

anyone know of one?

@VanDeBank's wife, and look, it's not her fault she works for Exxon.

 

[calodo2003]

While not ‘climate change’ per se, yet another example of how we feck the earth over (could also go in the ‘capitalism needs to die’ thread)…

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

 

[calodo2003]

 

[WPMUFC]

My biggest worry with this announcement now becomes "oh clean unlimited power is only 30-ish years away, let's not worry about the renewables transition, let's just adapt till fusion reactors are ready".

The lobbying firms will already be tested this.

 

[rimaldo]

have they tested my wife’s side of the bed?