Ocean Concerns

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Exile

But isn't this exactly what you just did in your next post?



I'm pretty sure the bucking started long before humans were around to witness it. The question is only whether human emissions from the past 150 years or so will make the ride bumpier.

Aren't you simply injecting your own opinions into a set of facts as currently known by scientific research? Or is there more certainty & drama than the facts as you stated them suggest?

Yes of course. I agree in pretty much everything you say. But many of the changes you mention did not take place during human history (as we know it) on earth and never have they taken place so rapidly. The change in the earths temp. and in the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 150 or so years are very dramatic indeed. The information I use, and I am not a climate scientist, is information that is agreed upon by ~97% of the climate scientists backed up by observations of weather patterns and events taking place around the globe. These patterns and events have been predicted by science as patterns and events that would occur as the earth warmed. Just one more first in years of firsts is the temp. in Dallas yesterday hit over 90 deg. f for the first time in recorded history. That is just one small first but the historic forest fires and flooding taking place around the globe coupled with the past years of record earth temperatures followed one after the other. The hurricane that crossed the Atlantic and hit northern Europe last month is the first ever in recorded history. The ferocity of the storms around the globe. These events are unprecedented so far as we know.

There is no question as to whether humans will make the ride bumpier. We already have and that bumpiness is only going to increase.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Alberg30Shill

They are subconsious, you wouldn't feel distress. To clarify, I identified mechanisms explaining both sides behavior.

It still begs the question of what is the true cause of the distress, subconscious or otherwise. There have also been lots of studies on the distorting effect on the human psyche of constant barrages of one-sided information from mainstream media sources. Not just CC or other front page topics the media latches onto, but obviously in repressive societies where the govt controls all the media. Then throw in some basic human psychology, i.e. the need for group approval, desire for conformity, aversion to being stereotyped, etc., and the potential for distortion & miscalculation is huge.

My only point is, whether or not there are physiological or psychological factors in play, it remains a scientific issue and therefore needs to be decided by independent, objective scientists. This is for political/policy reasons as well. For whatever reasons, the prevailing scientific consensus is not considered credible by far too many ordinary citizens. On the other hand, there is probably a far larger consensus on the credibility of other, obvious environmental problems, and many of the remedies for those issues coincide with the purported remedies for CC.

[geoleo]

Overpopulation and desire for 'first world' lifestyle definitely is polluting the planet. .This is also is killing off all animal life and fish. Everybody in India, China, Africa and Indonesia and the like now wants a car, TV /Internet and unlimited air conditioning. The only thing that will ever suppress this is major wars --including nuclear ones. This is because feeding this 'desire' is hugely profitable for multi national corporations and the politicians in control. Future generations are truly doomed. Soylent Green here we come.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Yes of course. I agree in pretty much everything you say. But many of the changes you mention did not take place during human history (as we know it) on earth and never have they taken place so rapidly. The change in the earths temp. and in the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 150 or so years are very dramatic indeed. The information I use, and I am not a climate scientist, is information that is agreed upon by ~97% of the climate scientists backed up by observations of weather patterns and events taking place around the globe. These patterns and events have been predicted by science as patterns and events that would occur as the earth warmed. Just one more first in years of firsts is the temp. in Dallas yesterday hit over 90 deg. f for the first time in recorded history. That is just one small first but the historic forest fires and flooding taking place around the globe coupled with the past years of record earth temperatures followed one after the other. The hurricane that crossed the Atlantic and hit northern Europe last month is the first ever in recorded history. The ferocity of the storms around the globe. These events are unprecedented so far as we know.

There is no question as to whether humans will make the ride bumpier. We already have and that bumpiness is only going to increase.

I respect your concerns DeepFrz and have no doubt they are sincere, but there is also a lot of contrary scientific opinion that disputes these types of alarmist assertions. Just for starters, many of the more notorious predictions have not in fact come to pass, using "human recorded history" is problematic given the brief period of time humans have populated the planet (to say nothing of the quality of measuring devices from earlier technologies), and the examples you and many others cite don't take into account previous natural warming periods in the Earth's history and how they influenced temps, currents, glaciers, etc. (For e.g., the medieval warming period in Europe).

Again, this doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, but it does explain why there is at least a minority of well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists who agree that humans have had negative impacts, but dispute whether those impacts override natural forces, or at least do so to the extent that such impacts would be serious. (That's why the "97% consensus" mantra is a myth ). In the meantime, there can certainly be a "just in case" argument made that, given the potential harm, we should act proactively. I certainly get that. But that involves a cost-benefit analysis by objective scientists and policymakers, something we seem to sorely lack these days.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Overpopulation and desire for 'first world' lifestyle definitely is polluting the planet. .This is also is killing off all animal life and fish. Everybody in India, China, Africa and Indonesia and the like now wants a car, TV /Internet and unlimited air conditioning. The only thing that will ever suppress this is major wars --including nuclear ones. This is because feeding this 'desire' is hugely profitable for multi national corporations and the politicians in control. Future generations are truly doomed. Soylent Green here we come.

The desires of people in the developing world are exactly the same types of human desires as people from the developed world, except they're coming later. The corporations are simply meeting that demand, and wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't profitable. So you're exactly right, except it's derived from the people and not the other way around.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

I respect your concerns DeepFrz and have no doubt they are sincere, but there is also a lot of contrary scientific opinion that disputes these types of alarmist assertions. Just for starters, many of the more notorious predictions have not in fact come to pass, using "human recorded history" is problematic given the brief period of time humans have populated the planet (to say nothing of the quality of measuring devices from earlier technologies), and the examples you and many others cite don't take into account previous natural warming periods in the Earth's history and how they influenced temps, currents, glaciers, etc. (For e.g., the medieval warming period in Europe).

Again, this doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, but it does explain why there is at least a minority of well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists who agree that humans have had negative impacts, but dispute whether those impacts override natural forces, or at least do so to the extent that such impacts would be serious. (That's why the "97% consensus" mantra is a myth ). In the meantime, there can certainly be a "just in case" argument made that, given the potential harm, we should act proactively. I certainly get that. But that involves a cost-benefit analysis by objective scientists and policymakers, something we seem to sorely lack these days.

'...many of the more notorious predictions have not in fact come to pass'

Hard to de-bunk without some examples. Can you provide them?


'...using "human recorded history" is problematic given the brief period of time humans have populated the planet'

Except when the data is manipulated or cherry-picked so that it seems to support a preconceived notion, like Stu's convenient slice of the rapid warming period at the end of the last ice age? (which is comfortably within the range of time 'humans have populated the planet'.)


'...to say nothing of the quality of measuring devices from earlier technologies'

Yet when adjustments are made to allow for discrepancies induced by them, that's presented as more 'evidence' that there is a vast conspiracy of scientists working together toward a nefarious end, or to ensure their grants into perpetuity. (I love that one because it so clearly illustrates how little the claimant knows about science and its' tenets)


'...the examples you and many others cite don't take into account previous natural warming periods in the Earth's history and how they influenced temps, currents, glaciers, etc. (For e.g., the medieval warming period in Europe'

If you're saying that layman or 'believers' if you like, don't take these 'natural warming periods into account, so what? If you have a specific question about a specific occurrence, cause or effect, you can be sure it has or is being studied. What do you think those grants pay for?

Please advise any specific examples supporting this statement.


'...there is at least a minority of well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists who agree that humans have had negative impacts, but dispute whether those impacts override natural forces, or at least do so to the extent that such impacts would be serious'

You've said this several times but so far I've seen you list only one, Judith Curry, who quit her post at Georgia Tech earlier this year claiming, basically, the conspiracy of other climate scientists as her reason. At one time she had an at least reasonable amount of credibility, but as time progressed her false claims and failed predictions pretty much put paid to her credibility, at least outside of pseudo-skeptic and industry funded bloggers sites.

Can you provide any other 'well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists' who fail to march to the 'MMGW religion'?



'...that involves a cost-benefit analysis by objective scientists and policymakers, something we seem to sorely lack these days.'

There is no lack of objective scientists (though you, or they for that matter, may not like what they find); the good ones are selected naturally by their objectivity. Policy makers, not so much, the multiple-edged sword of money, re-electability, special interest groups, public perception etc., ad nauseam, all conspire against it...

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Exile

I respect your concerns DeepFrz and have no doubt they are sincere, but there is also a lot of contrary scientific opinion that disputes these types of alarmist assertions. Just for starters, many of the more notorious predictions have not in fact come to pass, using "human recorded history" is problematic given the brief period of time humans have populated the planet (to say nothing of the quality of measuring devices from earlier technologies), and the examples you and many others cite don't take into account previous natural warming periods in the Earth's history and how they influenced temps, currents, glaciers, etc. (For e.g., the medieval warming period in Europe).

Again, this doesn't necessarily prove anything one way or the other, but it does explain why there is at least a minority of well-respected and equally-credentialed climate scientists who agree that humans have had negative impacts, but dispute whether those impacts override natural forces, or at least do so to the extent that such impacts would be serious. (That's why the "97% consensus" mantra is a myth ). In the meantime, there can certainly be a "just in case" argument made that, given the potential harm, we should act proactively. I certainly get that. But that involves a cost-benefit analysis by objective scientists and policymakers, something we seem to sorely lack these days.

I don't believe my views or the testimony of climate science is alarmist at all. Truthful probably but certainly not alarmist. Human like ancestors have been around for several million years and humans have been around for at least 200,000 years. That is a pretty good length of time to judge what kind of earth climate we need in order to thrive.

I don't see much contrary "SCIENCE" that hasn't been paid for by the Koch brothers or there ilk. It's interesting that much of the world population (not all by any means) other than US folks believe the science and feel that most scientists are hard working truthful folks. Many US Americans however have come to believe the propaganda that folks like the Koch brothers have paid to have spread. Much the same tactics as the tobacco industry used back in the day. It is interesting though that many US Americans have come over to the side of science after witnessing the events of the past few years.

Unfortunately now it is difficult to believe what is posted on the NOAA website. The fox is in the hen house, so to speak.

Anyway, I've had enough. See y'all.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by rgleason

...we constitute what is probably the single largest single species biomass ever seen. (...)

Not there yet!

What animal collectively makes up the largest biomass on Earth? | Science Focus

However, if US Americans keep on getting fatter at the present rate (about 20pounds gain every 10 years) then we (as a species) will soon catch up with cows.

Cheers,
barnakiel

[hpeer]

As an alternative to reading assignments I’ll suggest this brief (20 min) interview with a guy who has spent his life developing methodology to measure human impact on Earth. I‎t specifically includes the oceans and he explains how that is incorporated into the equation. Very knowledgeable, very accessible, extremely well respected. This is free mini-episode from behind a paywall. I don’t personally subscribe but this was shared with me so I pass I‎t along. (Here’s hoping the link works). Scroll down the page to Episode 54 and hit the play button.

In short he describes why the famous Global Footprint Is NOT what you think.

https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/e...e-limitations/

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Not there yet!

What animal collectively makes up the largest biomass on Earth? | Science Focus

However, if US Americans keep on getting fatter at the present rate (about 20pounds gain every 10 years) then we (as a species) will soon catch up with cows.

Cheers,
barnakiel

Barnikel
LOL. Well, ya got me on a technicality. Yes, cows weigh more than we do. HOWEVER, since the cows (the kind we have today anyway), not to mention chickens and pigs, are here only to feed us. If we went away so would they. So I would argue that their bio mass should be added to ours, because we are in a kind of weird symbiotic relationship, one goes with the other.

[Matt Johnson]

Here is the latest report issued today from the US Government on Climate Change. It comes from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).... I had to look this up, but here is what is said about the USGCRP:

The USGCRP is made up of 13 Federal departments and agencies that
carry out research and support the Nation’s response to global change.
The USGCRP is overseen by the Subcommittee on Global Change
Research (SGCR) of the National Science and Technology Council’s
Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability
(CENRS), which in turn is overseen by the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP). The agencies within USGCRP are
the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce (NOAA),
the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department
of Health and Human Services, the Department of the Interior, the Department
of State, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, and
the U.S. Agency for International Development.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov...FullReport.pdf

[hpeer]

From Barnikels link, note humans are now at 7.4 billion, putting abot equal with krill. +/-. Must be some skinny folks to average 50kg. Wiki has I‎t at 62kg. Cows still win
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight

“Among the most widespread animals are humans. 6.9 billion people averaging 50kg each equals roughly 350 million tonnes. Staggeringly, cow biomass exceeds 650 million tonnes (1.3 billion cattle conservatively weighing 500kg each).

The only wild species in the running is Antarctic Krill. A 2009 global estimate gives 379 million tonnes fresh biomass, but unknown aspects of this shrimp’s ecology make it hard to be sure. By comparison, blue whales (with their krill-based diet) comprised about 35 million tonnes pre-whaling, and about half a million tonnes in 2001.”

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

Here is the latest report issued today from the US Government on Climate Change. It comes from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).... I had to look this up, but here is what is said about the USGCRP:

......

https://science2017.globalchange.gov...FullReport.pdf

Excerpt from Summary


Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the last 115 years (1901–2016). This period is now the warmest in the history of modern civilization. The last few years have also seen record-breaking, climate-related weather extremes, and the last three years have been the warmest years on record for the globe. These trends are expected to continue over climate timescales.
This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activi- ties, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to hu- man activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have document- ed changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

[john61ct]

And you know those sources are as conservative as can be, hugely influenced by TPTB who would love for us to keep the status quo for just a few more years.

When what is needed is **urgent and radical** changes in our systems and behaviour.

[alctel]

I think the discussion in this thread is pretty much representative of the 'debate' at large - you can post all the scientific facts or graphs or raw data you want, backed up by explanations of what every data point means and you still get accused of personal attacks, or the data is written off as 'flawed' because somehow scientists are in this huge conspiracy to do.... something?!

You can show someone the sea level rise, the rise in sea temperatures, the acidification of the oceans, the krill die-offs, the permafrost melting in the artic, the air temperature increases, all correlated with the CO2 and other greenhouse gas increases - and it won't do a thing to change peoples minds.

Unfortunately, it's a pretty baked in part of the human mind and is why conservative groups have worked so hard to tie disbelief in MMCC to a conservative identity. To the detriment of us all.

What’s the lesson here? You have to understand WHY people hold certain beliefs. If those views are deeply tied to their identity, then fact-based arguments alone will not prevail. In fact, they might backfire.

https://www.careeba.com/persuading-p...nt-work-times/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ange-our-minds