Climate change and global warming 2020

[shunyadragon]

New year and a new thread to see whats changing the in global warming.

Source: https://www.livescience.com/underwater-robot-visits-antarctica-glacier.html

Surprisingly warm water found on underside of Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier'

© Copyright Original Source

[Esther]

I saw an expedition to western Alaska I think it was. What a huge undertaking. All to drill down the ice to take the temperature of the water beneath it. I was wanting to route for the people going through such extreme conditions, but just couldn't. To me it was all so pointless.

No matter what humans do or don't do, there is no way imo that it can ever stop global warming/climate change. We can all do something as individuals and as communities and countries for the environment, but nothing we do or do not do will help or hinder climate change as a whole. As if we can somehow stop earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, flooding etc etc.

Worshipping at the shrine of climate change is becoming the new religion.

[shunyadragon]

I saw an expedition to western Alaska I think it was. What a huge undertaking. All to drill down the ice to take the temperature of the water beneath it. I was wanting to route for the people going through such extreme conditions, but just couldn't. To me it was all so pointless.

No matter what humans do or don't do, there is no way imo that it can ever stop global warming/climate change. We can all do something as individuals and as communities and countries for the environment, but nothing we do or do not do will help or hinder climate change as a whole. As if we can somehow stop earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, flooding etc etc.

Worshipping at the shrine of climate change is becoming the new religion.

This an odd misrepresentation of climate change. It is well documented that humans caused global warming by raising the CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. though in part you are possibly correct. The climate change due to the rise in CO2 and greenhouse gases cannot likely be reversed, because the human generation of CO2 will not significantly change in the foreseeable future.

Though our efforts to reduce pollution and Co2 emissions are not without potential fruit. These changes will benefit future generation to reduce the degradation of the environment of the earth. The elimination of plastics will go along way to reduce our negative influence on the environment in future generations.

[Juvenal]

I saw an expedition to western Alaska I think it was. What a huge undertaking. All to drill down the ice to take the temperature of the water beneath it. I was wanting to route for the people going through such extreme conditions, but just couldn't. To me it was all so pointless.

No matter what humans do or don't do, there is no way imo that it can ever stop global warming/climate change. We can all do something as individuals and as communities and countries for the environment, but nothing we do or do not do will help or hinder climate change as a whole. As if we can somehow stop earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, flooding etc etc.

Global warming is being driven by increased CO2 concentrations, themselves stemming from human activity. It's within our power to do more of this. And conversely, it's within our power to stop that. Even if we don't stop it, it remains within our power to mitigate the harm by doing less of what's driving it or by finding alternatives.

Worshipping at the shrine of climate change is becoming the new religion.

I'm thinking that may come as a shock to your fellow adherents engaging in climate science. Have you considered calling them out as heretics, or just not yet? What's more interesting to me is how religious adherents make pariahs of their best scientists.

If science were made into a religion, as religions go, it's gotta be better than most of the alternatives. Their prophets have a much better track record for accurate predictions. Just today, I flicked a light switch and a biblical prophecy was fulfilled.

"And there was light."


The fact is there's considerable correlation between religious belief and climate science, but it runs the other way. And it's the same religious pushback from the same corner that condemned Galileo at one time, and still condemns Darwin. It's within your power to do stop that, or at the very least, to do less of it.

[Seeker]

Global warming is being driven by increased CO2 concentrations, themselves stemming from human activity. It's within our power to do more of this. And conversely, it's within our power to stop that. Even if we don't stop it, it remains within our power to mitigate the harm by doing less of what's driving it or by finding alternatives.



I'm thinking that may come as a shock to your fellow adherents engaging in climate science. Have you considered calling them out as heretics, or just not yet? What's more interesting to me is how religious adherents make pariahs of their best scientists.

If science were made into a religion, as religions go, it's gotta be better than most of the alternatives. Their prophets have a much better track record for accurate predictions. Just today, I flicked a light switch and a biblical prophecy was fulfilled.

"And there was light."


The fact is there's considerable correlation between religious belief and climate science, but it runs the other way. And it's the same religious pushback from the same corner that condemned Galileo at one time, and still condemns Darwin. It's within your power to do stop that, or at the very least, to do less of it.

What's the definitive argument against those conspirationists who think global warming is a scam? Do you happen to know?

[Juvenal]

What's the definitive argument against those conspirationists who think global warming is a scam? Do you happen to know?

The hoax theory is being driven by aliens.

Tell them the truth is out there.

[Esther]

It is not a scam. Climate change is occuring. We have no power to stop it. In any way. To stop the natural disasters like wild fires, earthquakes, tornadoes and floods. We can address our environments individually (re-cycle our waste etc) and as communities and countries but we cannot stop the tide.

[TheLurch]

Climate change is occuring. We have no power to stop it.

The second statement is only true if we are not responsible for driving climate change. But the evidence clearly indicates we are.

[TheLurch]

What's the definitive argument against those conspirationists who think global warming is a scam? Do you happen to know?

As far as i understand it, the "scam" argument assumes that the scientists who have developed the evidence for climate change benefit from the fact that said evidence is accepted.

But that doesn't seem to be true. Funding for climate science has been largely flat for decades, even as acceptance of the evidence has risen. It has remained the same whether the administration accepted the evidence or didn't. And, in countries that are doing things about climate change, the money flows to engineers, utility companies, etc. that actually can do something about climate change, rather than the people who describe its trajectory.

At that point, people start resorting to things like the claim that scientists are getting invited to better conferences or something equally silly. Whether they'll be self-conscious enough to recognize they're being silly is a separate question.

[Esther]

The second statement is only true if we are not responsible for driving climate change. But the evidence clearly indicates we are.

If we are responsible it does not necessarily mean we can do anything about it. Could be that the horse has bolted. Do you think we can stop the natural disasters? Surely not?

[TheLurch]

If we are responsible it does not necessarily mean we can do anything about it. Could be that the horse has bolted. Do you think we can stop the natural disasters? Surely not?

Climate change isn't about all-or-nothing effects. It's about changing the probabilities of some events. Warmer air holds more moisture, and so you'll see more intense rainfall in locations where it normally rains. Doesn't mean those areas have never experienced intense rainfalls. It's just that the most extreme events they experience now will become more common, and the worst instances will become more extreme. Similar things with droughts, which will last longer and be accompanied by hotter weather.

Natural disasters will always occur - you're correct that we won't stop them. But, for the ones that are sensitive to the climate, we can affect their trajectory.

[shunyadragon]

It is not a scam. Climate change is occuring. We have no power to stop it. In any way. To stop the natural disasters like wild fires, earthquakes, tornadoes and floods. We can address our environments individually (re-cycle our waste etc) and as communities and countries but we cannot stop the tide.

No we are not able to stop nor reduce earthquakes, floods and tornadoes at all. Stopping wild fires is a questionable scenario. In general no, but we can control them to a degree. The increasing aridity is responsible for the radical increase of wild fires and forest fires particularly, and no we cannot stop them as evidenced in California and Australia.

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://phys.org/news/2020-02-arctic-ice-ocean-currents.html

Arctic ice melt is changing ocean currents

© Copyright Original Source

[Teallaura]

As far as i understand it, the "scam" argument assumes that the scientists who have developed the evidence for climate change benefit from the fact that said evidence is accepted.

But that doesn't seem to be true. Funding for climate science has been largely flat for decades, even as acceptance of the evidence has risen. It has remained the same whether the administration accepted the evidence or didn't. And, in countries that are doing things about climate change, the money flows to engineers, utility companies, etc. that actually can do something about climate change, rather than the people who describe its trajectory.

At that point, people start resorting to things like the claim that scientists are getting invited to better conferences or something equally silly. Whether they'll be self-conscious enough to recognize they're being silly is a separate question.

No, that's a supporting point, but not the argument. The argument centers on the alarmism being wielded to shift political power.

[TheLurch]

No, that's a supporting point, but not the argument. The argument centers on the alarmism being wielded to shift political power.

I suggest you read more of the internet then - the argument that it's all about funding is pretty prevalent.

I wasn't aware that scientists attempted to amass political power through alarmism. Maybe you can provide examples?