Good luck to our kids

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

take that 90% for 5 days and now what percentage chance do they have of being right 10, 20, 30 years down the line. .00001?

No, because climate is different than daily weather. The climate of Florida is hot and humid, but they've recorded snow in their history. Just because it snowed a few times doesnt change the climate. Does that make sense?

Scientists have the methods to determine what climates were millions of years ago with their methods which you can read about here.

What types of data do scientists use to study climate? - NASA Science

The modern thermometer was invented in 1654, and global temperature records began in 1880. Climate researchers utilize a variety of direct and indirect measurements to investigate Earth’s climate history comprehensively. Direct measurements include data from satellites in space, instruments on...

climate.nasa.gov

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

The models can change in an instant because of so many variables. With the variables that can happen over a 20 10, 20, 30 year period of climat change...the variables are infinite and there's no way a scientist can calculate all of them. That's why this is all BS.

We can see it with images over the years. The polar caps are shrinking, there will be no ice in the Arctic during summers by 2050.

 

[HALL85]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to prioritize adopting policies and providing guidance to adopt to climate change? We can do everything in our power and spend trillions of dollars and still find ourselves in the same position because the rest of the world (and greatest polluters) did very little.

* Maybe we should start with reducing consumption. Why do we need homes that are more than 2,000 sq. ft. (along with the heating, cooling costs).
* Why do we continue to build multi-million dollar homes on Long Beach Island if in 20-30 years it will no longer exist because of rising tides? Wouldn't it make more sense to relocate jobs/people to cooler climates and away from the coastal areas?
* Maybe infrastructure dollars would be better focused on areas that have longer term sustainability.
* Shouldn't limiting domestic and global population growth be the best strategy at reducing consumption of resources, energy and carbon footprint?

If this is such a "dire" situation, we should be challenging ourselves with real solutions (and sacrifice) to protect our children and their children. Driving a Tesla from your 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion in Chatham to your beach house on LBI really isn't moving the needle.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to prioritize adopting policies and providing guidance to adopt to climate change? We can do everything in our power and spend trillions of dollars and still find ourselves in the same position because the rest of the world (and greatest polluters) did very little.

* Maybe we should start with reducing consumption. Why do we need homes that are more than 2,000 sq. ft. (along with the heating, cooling costs).
* Why do we continue to build multi-million dollar homes on Long Beach Island if in 20-30 years it will no longer exist because of rising tides? Wouldn't it make more sense to relocate jobs/people to cooler climates and away from the coastal areas?
* Maybe infrastructure dollars would be better focused on areas that have longer term sustainability.
* Shouldn't limiting domestic and global population growth be the best strategy at reducing consumption of resources, energy and carbon footprint?

If this is such a "dire" situation, we should be challenging ourselves with real solutions (and sacrifice) to protect our children and their children. Driving a Tesla from your 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion in Chatham to your beach house on LBI really isn't moving the needle.

These are good points regarding the excesses of society and of course there is plenty of land in colder climates. The problem that I see is crops if it goes the way they suggest. Crops can only take so much drought, deluges of rain and powerful winds before they fail. If you lose the ability to feed your populations society breaks down. I realize we're nowhere near that today in the US, but in other areas of the world it is not far fetched.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

We can see it with images over the years. The polar caps are shrinking, there will be no ice in the Arctic during summers by 2050.

The earth has 800,000 years of glacial and interglacial periods. Can anyone confirm what the polar caps looked like through the 800,000 years. Is this a first for earth?

 

[Merge]

Wouldn't it be more prudent to prioritize adopting policies and providing guidance to adopt to climate change? We can do everything in our power and spend trillions of dollars and still find ourselves in the same position because the rest of the world (and greatest polluters) did very little.

* Maybe we should start with reducing consumption. Why do we need homes that are more than 2,000 sq. ft. (along with the heating, cooling costs).
* Why do we continue to build multi-million dollar homes on Long Beach Island if in 20-30 years it will no longer exist because of rising tides? Wouldn't it make more sense to relocate jobs/people to cooler climates and away from the coastal areas?
* Maybe infrastructure dollars would be better focused on areas that have longer term sustainability.
* Shouldn't limiting domestic and global population growth be the best strategy at reducing consumption of resources, energy and carbon footprint?

If this is such a "dire" situation, we should be challenging ourselves with real solutions (and sacrifice) to protect our children and their children. Driving a Tesla from your 5,000 sq. ft. McMansion in Chatham to your beach house on LBI really isn't moving the needle.

Right... we are moving more towards dire because people have not been willing to voluntarily make those choices. People flipped out at the suggestion of eating less Beef and for people to stop using incandescent lightbulbs.

Those are generally fairly small steps individuals can take that would make a meaningful impact if we all agreed to them. People just tend not to care until it impacts them personally. (Kind of like a global pandemic)

 

[shu09]

We can see it with images over the years. The polar caps are shrinking, there will be no ice in the Arctic during summers by 2050.

Earth is in a natural warming cycle that lasts hundreds of years. Read about the brutally cold winters during the Revolutionary War - earth was in a cold cycle then.

 

[shu09]

Right... we are moving more towards dire because people have not been willing to voluntarily make those choices. People flipped out at the suggestion of eating less Beef and for people to stop using incandescent lightbulbs.

Those are generally fairly small steps individuals can take that would make a meaningful impact if we all agreed to them. People just tend not to care until it impacts them personally. (Kind of like a global pandemic)

I'm not a meat eater but - I've never understood why global warming alarmists freak out about meat eating. How does that affect climate??

 

[HALL85]

Right... we are moving more towards dire because people have not been willing to voluntarily make those choices. People flipped out at the suggestion of eating less Beef and for people to stop using incandescent lightbulbs.

Those are generally fairly small steps individuals can take that would make a meaningful impact if we all agreed to them. People just tend not to care until it impacts them personally. (Kind of like a global pandemic)

Right....so people are resistant to change. Resistant to change to lifestyle, eating habitat, and spending money on projects that are likely to yield very little in return (much less save their lives).

All of those small steps would meet the same resistance. But if we are talking about a dire situation (that is actually dire), shouldn't we be thinking big to save humanity vs. thinking small to delay extinction?

Actually the pandemic is a good example...we thought big on advancing treatments, manufacturing PPE and vaccine development with Operation Warp Speed. We can do it if the problem is real and will save lives.

 

[Merge]

Right....so people are resistant to change. Resistant to change to lifestyle, eating habitat, and spending money on projects that are likely to yield very little in return (much less save their lives).

All of those small steps would meet the same resistance. But if we are talking about a dire situation (that is actually dire), shouldn't we be thinking big to save humanity vs. thinking small to delay extinction?

Actually the pandemic is a good example...we thought big on advancing treatments, manufacturing PPE and vaccine development with Operation Warp Speed. We can do it if the problem is real and will save lives.

The situation is more akin to someone about to die from Covid in August 2021 saying that they wish they got vaccinated.

They had months to do it and chose not to. The situation wasn't dire for them until it was... and then it was too late.

 

[HALL85]

The situation is more akin to someone about to die from Covid in August 2021 saying that they wish they got vaccinated.

They had months to do it and chose not to. The situation wasn't dire for them until it was... and then it was too late.

No it’s about what we as a government/country should do. Individuals should do their part, but to create meaningful solutions…

 

[SPK145]

Right... we are moving more towards dire because people have not been willing to voluntarily make those choices.

Some of those choices are subsidized by the government. Like homes on the water.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

No, because climate is different than daily weather. The climate of Florida is hot and humid, but they've recorded snow in their history. Just because it snowed a few times doesnt change the climate. Does that make sense?

Scientists have the methods to determine what climates were millions of years ago with their methods which you can read about here.

What types of data do scientists use to study climate? - NASA Science

The modern thermometer was invented in 1654, and global temperature records began in 1880. Climate researchers utilize a variety of direct and indirect measurements to investigate Earth’s climate history comprehensively. Direct measurements include data from satellites in space, instruments on...

climate.nasa.gov

What doesn't make sense is that some scientist has taken into account for all the variables of the next 10-50 years.

 

[Merge]

Some of those choices are subsidized by the government. Like homes on the water.

That's why I don't have one!

 

[SPK145]

That's why I don't have one!

Me neither. But I want one if the government is going to heavily subsidize my insurance!!!

 

[Merge]

What doesn't make sense is that some scientist has taken into account for all the variables of the next 10-50 years.

Doesn't make sense, or doesn't make sense to you? It's data modeling.

Bluntly none of us here would be understand the math behind it entirely. At some point, you do have to place some trust in the scientific community and peer review process.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Doesn't make sense, or doesn't make sense to you? It's data modeling.

Bluntly none of us here would be understand the math behind it entirely. At some point, you do have to place some trust in the scientific community and peer review process.

Just like we've put our trust in the food pyramid intended to make us healthy, that's made the country extremely unhealthy. I think it's fair to have some, if not many doubts.

 

[Merge]

Just like we've put our trust in the food pyramid intended to make us healthy, that's made the country extremely unhealthy. I think it's fair to have some, if not many doubts.

Right, but you place a lot of trust about where you are finding your current diet information, right?
You have made decisions about how to live your life based on scientific research and studies from certain doctors you trust?

Why not apply that same logic to the climate?

 

[HALL85]

Right, but you place a lot of trust about where you are finding your current diet information, right?
You have made decisions about how to live your life based on scientific research and studies from certain doctors you trust?

Why not apply that same logic to the climate?

Because I'm somewhat skeptical of the UN study that is at the header of this article. We all have our trusted sources of information. To me there are two important questions regarding climate change. 1) How much is man-made vs. naturally occurring (there are wide ranges of views on that) and 2) What meaningful changes can we make as a society to be good stewards of the planet? (And that would include adjusting to a changing climate - like some of the ideas I mentioned earlier and reducing consumption). What is the expected outcome and what are the costs. That seems like logic, right?

 

[SPK145]

Can you even get unadjusted prior temperature records? I don't think so.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

Because I'm somewhat skeptical of the UN study that is at the header of this article. We all have our trusted sources of information. To me there are two important questions regarding climate change. 1) How much is man-made vs. naturally occurring (there are wide ranges of views on that) and 2) What meaningful changes can we make as a society to be good stewards of the planet? (And that would include adjusting to a changing climate - like some of the ideas I mentioned earlier and reducing consumption). What is the expected outcome and what are the costs. That seems like logic, right?

The temperature rise coincides with the industrial revolution. Is that just a coincidence?

 

[HALL85]

The temperature rise coincides with the industrial revolution. Is that just a coincidence?

And the worlds population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion today. Is that just a coincidence?

 

[Merge]

Because I'm somewhat skeptical of the UN study that is at the header of this article. We all have our trusted sources of information. To me there are two important questions regarding climate change. 1) How much is man-made vs. naturally occurring (there are wide ranges of views on that) and 2) What meaningful changes can we make as a society to be good stewards of the planet? (And that would include adjusting to a changing climate - like some of the ideas I mentioned earlier and reducing consumption). What is the expected outcome and what are the costs. That seems like logic, right?

You don't have to trust the UN though. There are countless studies on this and there are two general agreements among all of them.

1. The earth is currently warming.
2. Human activity is impacting the rate of warming. (though there is room for debate about quantifying that impact)

From there I tend to err on the side of caution especially when the worst case is that we spent too much money to get cleaner air, water and millions of new jobs... Best case is that we reduce the rate of the earths warming AND get all of the other benefits.

Best case of inaction is we do nothing and the climate models were all wrong.
Worst case of inaction - Long term can et pretty bad. We will end up spending more and will have more extreme weather events, economic disruptions, food shortages etc...

What's the cost exactly? I don't know. Probably quite a bit.
What's the cost of doing nothing exactly? Probably quite a bit as well.

 

[Merge]

And the worlds population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.7 billion today. Is that just a coincidence?

A coincidence that warming coinciding with a large population increase? No. That is kind of the point here.
Humans are warming the earth. More rapidly after we started burring so much fuel.

 

[HALL85]

A coincidence that warming coinciding with a large population increase? No. That is kind of the point here.
Humans are warming the earth. More rapidly after we started burring so much fuel.

So wouldn't having a strategy limiting population growth be a good starting point?

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Right, but you place a lot of trust about where you are finding your current diet information, right?
You have made decisions about how to live your life based on scientific research and studies from certain doctors you trust?

Why not apply that same logic to the climate?

My logic is with doctors going against what the government is telling us because our government is looking out for the best interest of Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, big chicken companies, etc. Once they promote those companies, people need big pharma. Crazy concept where everyone makes money and our health deteriotes. They're not doing anything for our best interest. Just their wallets. I think I'm applying similar logic.

 

[HALL85]

You don't have to trust the UN though. There are countless studies on this and there are two general agreements among all of them.

1. The earth is currently warming.
2. Human activity is impacting the rate of warming. (though there is room for debate about quantifying that impact)

From there I tend to err on the side of caution especially when the worst case is that we spent too much money to get cleaner air, water and millions of new jobs... Best case is that we reduce the rate of the earths warming AND get all of the other benefits.

Best case of inaction is we do nothing and the climate models were all wrong.
Worst case of inaction - Long term can et pretty bad. We will end up spending more and will have more extreme weather events, economic disruptions, food shortages etc...

What's the cost exactly? I don't know. Probably quite a bit.
What's the cost of doing nothing exactly? Probably quite a bit as well.

So that was my question...how much are humans contributing to the warming.

Seems like the spirit of innovation might be able to address food shortages without disruption of weather events...just a matter of scale.

https://boweryfarming.com/

I would rather see the world prioritize solutions that will enable us to deal in a warming climate (a debatable amount that we can't control).

 

[Merge]

So wouldn't having a strategy limiting population growth be a good starting point?

Not really necessary. The rate of increase has slowed every year for the last 40 years.
Just need to be thoughtful in how we treat the earth while we are here.

 

[Merge]

My logic is with doctors going against what the government is telling us because our government is looking out for the best interest of Coca Cola, Pepsi Co, big chicken companies, etc. Once they promote those companies, people need big pharma. Crazy concept where everyone makes money and our health deteriotes. They're not doing anything for our best interest. Just their wallets. I think I'm applying similar logic.

But these scientists telling us that climate change is real and impacted by man are not all coming from the US government. You're just choosing which doctors / scientists / studies to believe based on what you want to believe.

 

[shu09]

The temperature rise coincides with the industrial revolution. Is that just a coincidence?

Yes, because modern weather record keeping is only a couple hundred years old, if that. The earth's climate has been evolving for billions of years. The last 200 years are just a blip.

 

[Merge]

So that was my question...how much are humans contributing to the warming.

Seems like the spirit of innovation might be able to address food shortages without disruption of weather events...just a matter of scale.

https://boweryfarming.com/

I would rather see the world prioritize solutions that will enable us to deal in a warming climate (a debatable amount that we can't control).

We don't need to pick between funding innovation in the food supply vs investments in reducing our emissions though. We can do both.

Like I said, there is plenty of debate around how much we are contributing - and my desire for action is erring on the side of caution because none of the spending would be wasted as it would result in cleaner air and water and millions of jobs at a minimum.

 

[HALL85]

We don't need to pick between funding innovation in the food supply vs investments in reducing our emissions though. We can do both.

Like I said, there is plenty of debate around how much we are contributing - and my desire for action is erring on the side of caution because none of the spending would be wasted as it would result in cleaner air and water and millions of jobs at a minimum.

Would it? Would it be material? Or is that just an assumption?

Focusing on food supply as a first priority would solve a lot more (not be dependent on weather changes, improve the health of our population, create jobs, etc.)

And remember, the talking points are that we are in a dire situation and the article that is at the top of this thread suggests widespread social and economic upheaval and more than enough to unleash disastrous weather even if we slash carbon emissions. Is it cleaner air and water or preventing global destruction. That's a pretty wide gap.

 

[Merge]

Would it? Would it be material? Or is that just an assumption?

Focusing on food supply as a first priority would solve a lot more (not be dependent on weather changes, improve the health of our population, create jobs, etc.)

Why only pick one thing when you can have many?
Of course we need to focus on the food supply. Entirely possible any action we take doesn't move the needle and we should plan for that as well. I pretty much always err on the side of caution.

And remember, the talking points are that we are in a dire situation and the article that is at the top of this thread suggests widespread social and economic upheaval and more than enough to unleash disastrous weather even if we slash carbon emissions. Is it cleaner air and water or preventing global destruction. That's a pretty wide gap.

It is based on the assumption that the models are correct in the worst case assumptions but the goal of would be preventing global destruction.. Cleaner air and water and millions of jobs if the consequence of action towards the goal.

 

[HALL85]

Why only pick one thing when you can have many?
Of course we need to focus on the food supply. Entirely possible any action we take doesn't move the needle and we should plan for that as well. I pretty much always err on the side of caution.



It is based on the assumption that the models are correct in the worst case assumptions but the goal of would be preventing global destruction.. Cleaner air and water and millions of jobs if the consequence of action towards the goal.

Prioritize doesn’t mean “pick one”.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

But these scientists telling us that climate change is real and impacted by man are not all coming from the US government. You're just choosing which doctors / scientists / studies to believe based on what you want to believe.

I'm looking for doctors and scientists looking to do their jobs for the right reasons. People who are not up for sale to make science prove what they want it to prove. Lot of things out there like Milk has calcium. Yes we'll find the one good thing it has, promote that, and ignore all the horrible things like cow hormones that are in it. There's a lot of that type of behavior done by people of all professions.

 

[Hallsome]

You have conspiracy theory positions.

He might cast them as conspiracies, you apparently don’t. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. But if one doesnt think the global elite are implementing policies to make more $, I think that person(s) is naive. The money at least trickes down, to an extent.

 

[Hallsome]

The situation is more akin to someone about to die from Covid in August 2021 saying that they wish they got vaccinated.

They had months to do it and chose not to. The situation wasn't dire for them until it was... and then it was too late.

What was the situation in, say, 1995? Dire then?

 

[SHUSA]

I read it weeks ago. It's garbage, classic hit piece.

Cite a source that isn't true. Still waiting.

i didnt know donald was on the board.

 

[sami]

So wouldn't having a strategy limiting population growth be a good starting point?

Strong case can be made for the use of the Infinity Gauntlet.

 

[SHUSA]

my meteorlogist friend says humans are 1000% impacting climate change in a highly accelerated negative direction. all those absurd weather extremes happening are a direct result. not on the million year natural cycle. not only do i believe him, its just common sense.

does anyone here clean their home? why? ever seen the show hoarders? what happens to those homes?

really makes no sense to deny or oppose anything that helps make the world better. unless they know how to make mars better and we can go there