Human Caused Global Warming

[deepend]

  Though this is a science forum, I wonder if there are any HCGW deniers around here.  They always amuse me.  That aside, there is nothing amusing about HCGW.  And what I find most troubling about it is that not even science programs seem willing to speak the truth about it.  Maybe it is yet another case of scientists basically having to kowtow to those who pay their salaries.  Universities who get much funding from big business or to big business directly.  Such as our political leaders do.

  I recently watched a couple different programs about HCGW.  One spoke of a feedback loop and another spoke about the exponential increase in HCGW.  But neither stated plainly exactly what that meant.  Which is that HCGW is speeding up.  The warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer.  There is one program I saw that told some truth on the matter.  It was hosted by Bill Nye and was called Global Meltdown.  In it he interviewed an ex college or university professor.  This professor had been studying the problem for something around 15 years.  What he found out caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday.  Which he figured could happen in the next 20 years.  The main thing that brought him to this conclusion was the exponential increase in methane release.  Because methane is 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  Though in my opinion, we have a little longer than 20 years.  I figure that it will be a miracle if any humans will be around to see the year 2050. 

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, deepend said:

Though this is a science forum, I wonder if there are any HCGW deniers around here

Sure there are. They’re the dumb ones. 

13 minutes ago, deepend said:

what I find most troubling about it is that not even science programs seem willing to speak the truth about it.

Unless you’ve watched and catalogues the claims of them all, then is better explained as a sampling bias and/or confirmation bias than a valid conclusion. It’s simply inaccurate. 

[Dropship]

As a matter of interest there are millions (billions?) of private cars in the world which must be messing up our atmosphere pretty bad, yet heavy industry is being blamed and nobody seems to want to acknowledge that cars are stinky things too..:)

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Dropship

[John Cuthber]

32 minutes ago, Dropship said:

nobody seems to want to acknowledge that cars are stinky things too..:)

What do you think is behind the development of electric vehicles?

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

What do you think is behind the development of electric vehicles?

I'm remembering the last time gas prices were this high, under Bush II in 2008. It had a great deal to do with the decisions to fully move into electric car production. People didn't care as much about clean air as they did affordable driving, but whatever got the ball rolling, I guess.

[MigL]

You can understand the science behind AGW, and be fully aware of the consequences, yet, when you see things like "The world will end in 20 years" or "There will be no humans left", you reaize there are nut-bars on both sides.

What the Ukraine situation has proven, is that people are willing to endure the pain of high gas and energy prices, if they perceive it as a good cause.
But, when all that happens during shortages, is oil companies lobbying the governments to increase profits or production will decrease even further, to the tune of astronomical profits of over $20 billion in 2021 for companies like Shell or Mobil, you start asking why we are enduring the pain for them to profit.
Or why J Biden is dealing with another ( just as bad ) dictator in Venezuela to make up for the losses from the previous dictator that supplied us, yet refuses Canadian oil even though we have , and use, technology to produce it just as clean.

By all means have a fair tax on fossil fuels, but re-invest this tax on infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles.
Off-shore wind farms, Solar panel farms in the South-west, along with distribution grids.
And major investments in nuclear fusion.

[Sensei]

On 3/9/2022 at 1:18 AM, deepend said:

One spoke of a feedback loop and another spoke about the exponential increase in HCGW.  But neither stated plainly exactly what that meant. 

...if we increase the temperature, the ice at the North and South Poles melts. White (e.g. snow) surface reflects sunlight. Dark (e.g. water) surface absorbs light. The less snow, the less glaciers, the more water, the faster the remaining snow and ice melts..

 

Photos taken by satellites over several decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=annual+arctic+sea+with+area+graph

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Sensei

[Dropship]

A couple of years ago I asked polar explorer Mike Stroud if global warming was a myth, and he simply replied "The glaciers are melting." but wouldn't elaborate.

[swansont]

17 hours ago, Dropship said:

As a matter of interest there are millions (billions?) of private cars in the world which must be messing up our atmosphere pretty bad, yet heavy industry is being blamed and nobody seems to want to acknowledge that cars are stinky things too..:)

It's always a bit frustrating to be tagged a "nobody"

I think perhaps you are just not paying sufficient attention.

12 hours ago, Dropship said:

A couple of years ago I asked polar explorer Mike Stroud if global warming was a myth, and he simply replied "The glaciers are melting." but wouldn't elaborate.

What expertise does this person have that they might render a scientific assessment?

[studiot]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

You can understand the science behind AGW, and be fully aware of the consequences, yet, when you see things like "The world will end in 20 years" or "There will be no humans left", you reaize there are nut-bars on both sides.

What the Ukraine situation has proven, is that people are willing to endure the pain of high gas and energy prices, if they perceive it as a good cause.
But, when all that happens during shortages, is oil companies lobbying the governments to increase profits or production will decrease even further, to the tune of astronomical profits of over $20 billion in 2021 for companies like Shell or Mobil, you start asking why we are enduring the pain for them to profit.
Or why J Biden is dealing with another ( just as bad ) dictator in Venezuela to make up for the losses from the previous dictator that supplied us, yet refuses Canadian oil even though we have , and use, technology to produce it just as clean.

By all means have a fair tax on fossil fuels, but re-invest this tax on infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles.
Off-shore wind farms, Solar panel farms in the South-west, along with distribution grids.
And major investments in nuclear fusion.

So many good points to ponder here.  +1

Such a shame the UK Government's persistent obsession with a 'market economy' demonstrate the folly of some of these all too well.

 

Do you consider that there is any difference between the socio-economics of large and small countries involved in this ?

Edited March 11, 2022 by studiot

[MigL]

Not sure.
But our Canadian Government talks big when it comes to addressing AGW, but does very little.
I am seriously considering going electric for my next vehicle, but unless the Government re-invests gasoline taxes and carbon taxes into the infrastructure needed for EV operation in a country as 'distributed' as Canada, it may turn out to be a very impractical decision.

[Dropship]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What expertise does this person have that they might render a scientific assessment?

Well Stroud is a polar explorer, and anyway there are plenty of other sources showing pictures of melting ice and polar bears looking a bit unhappy.

Generally, scientists can't seem to agree on he 'Global Warming' thing anyway; some say we nasty humans are causing it, but others say it's a normal natural cyclic thing that occurs at periods of earth's history, so which camp are we to believe? 

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Dropship said:

Generally, scientists can't seem to agree on he 'Global Warming' thing anyway; some say we nasty humans are causing it, but others say it's a normal natural cyclic thing that occurs at periods of earth's history, so which camp are we to believe? 

This is badly out of line with current science, where consensus on the subject is based on the data. I politely suggest you educate yourself instead of making these blanket assessments, which are often perpetuated by those who stand to gain from ignoring the present climate crisis. IOW, you sound like you're being paid to spread bad info.

[Dropship]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is badly out of line with current science, where consensus on the subject is based on the data. I politely suggest you educate yourself instead of making these blanket assessments, which are often perpetuated by those who stand to gain from ignoring the present climate crisis. IOW, you sound like you're being paid to spread bad info.

 

I'm neutral at the moment not knowing which camp to believe so I'm hoping to educate myself by getting some sage guidance and wisdom from SF's finest brains..:)

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, Dropship said:

I'm neutral at the moment not knowing which camp to believe so I'm hoping to educate myself by getting some sage guidance and wisdom from SF's finest brains..:)

So you didn't read the information I gave you from the NASA site? If you continue to remain "neutral" afterwards, I would imagine there's nothing that would change your mind, and that suggests you don't want it to be true.

Some folks think what you're doing is being a good skeptic, but a good skeptic not only questions what they're told, they also dig deep and find the best current explanation. Skeptics are NOT fence-sitters, so if you've remained "neutral" all this time, it's most likely because you're resisting what you're trying to learn.

[Dropship]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

So you didn't read the information I gave you from the NASA site? If you continue to remain "neutral" afterwards, I would imagine there's nothing that would change your mind, and that suggests you don't want it to be true.

Some folks think what you're doing is being a good skeptic, but a good skeptic not only questions what they're told, they also dig deep and find the best current explanation. Skeptics are NOT fence-sitters, so if you've remained "neutral" all this time, it's most likely because you're resisting what you're trying to learn.

 

Can we trust any external site, no matter what it says?

Discussion forums like SF therefore serve a very useful purpose by discussing things among members themselves.

We know there have been a cycle of ice ages and thaws throughout earth's history, so perhaps we're currently in a "thaw" phase, hence the melting ice.

Or perhaps pollution is to blame, so we don't really know what to think? 

 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, Dropship said:

so we don't really know what to think? 

Absolutely! When 99%+ of the worlds experts on this topic wholeheartedly agree on what's happening, the very BEST position for you to take is, "We really don't know what to think." You totally nailed it! Well done. 

Has anyone done a sockpuppet test on this account, btw?

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Dropship said:

Can we trust any external site, no matter what it says?

Discussion forums like SF therefore serve a very useful purpose by discussing things among members themselves.

Now that I know you aren't going to bother educating yourself by reading trusted links I post, I'm wondering how you think discussion will help? It sounds like you're going to preach and ignore what others say, and that's basically blogging. Discussion means you actually engage with others to remove ignorance. It works beautifully, but not the way you're doing it. If you aren't listening, you're soapboxing, and why would I want to discuss science with you? No disrespect, but nobody has time for that.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Not sure.
But our Canadian Government talks big when it comes to addressing AGW, but does very little.
I am seriously considering going electric for my next vehicle, but unless the Government re-invests gasoline taxes and carbon taxes into the infrastructure needed for EV operation in a country as 'distributed' as Canada, it may turn out to be a very impractical decision.

I've decided my next car will definitely be electric. I'm just hoping to hang on for a year or two, while the charging network improves, the main issue being to have a charging point in Brittany where we go for summer holidays. (There are already charging points on the overnight ferry).  What gives me a bit of a guilty conscience is that I've found that I can't realistically get a heat pump to replace the gas central hearing boiler. The house, which is Victorian, is too big and difficult to insulate sufficiently. I shall just have to get a new, efficient gas boiler and hope that eventually I can run it on green or blue hydrogen - or a hydrogen/methane blend.

The UK government has done almost nothing to address this issue yet, which is a huge hole in its climate change strategy.  

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Well Stroud is a polar explorer, and anyway there are plenty of other sources showing pictures of melting ice and polar bears looking a bit unhappy.

Generally, scientists can't seem to agree on he 'Global Warming' thing anyway; some say we nasty humans are causing it, but others say it's a normal natural cyclic thing that occurs at periods of earth's history, so which camp are we to believe? 

That's a fairly strange statement. Climate scientists are practically unanimous.

The only significant doubt seems to be among those non-experts who don't want to believe it, either for political reasons or for reasons of personal convenience.  

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Well Stroud is a polar explorer, and anyway there are plenty of other sources showing pictures of melting ice and polar bears looking a bit unhappy.

So not much different than asking a random person on the street.

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Generally, scientists can't seem to agree on he 'Global Warming' thing anyway; some say we nasty humans are causing it, but others say it's a normal natural cyclic thing that occurs at periods of earth's history, so which camp are we to believe? 

No, not so much. There are very few scientists in the relevant field who are saying it's not anthropogenic. You increase those numbers slightly when you get to other fields of science, but you have to be careful about the ones who have been paid for their denial.

It's a false balance, such as you are using here, that is advanced by some of the bad actors in the conversation. And, frankly, I would expect a retired physicist to be taking a more critical view of the issue than talking to an explorer and settling for "he said, she said" reporting.

[TheVat]

59 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I've decided my next car will definitely be electric. I'm just hoping to hang on for a year or two, while the charging network improves, the main issue being to have a charging point in Brittany where we go for summer holidays. (There are already charging points on the overnight ferry).  What gives me a bit of a guilty conscience is that I've found that I can't realistically get a heat pump to replace the gas central hearing boiler. The house, which is Victorian, is too big and difficult to insulate sufficiently. I shall just have to get a new, efficient gas boiler and hope that eventually I can run it on green or blue hydrogen - or a hydrogen/methane blend.

 

Electrics have disappointed me somewhat, since you have to drive them 15-25,000 miles to break even on carbon. (the car you already have doesn't require any mining, smelting, fabrication, etc)  If, like me, you walk and bike a lot and put only a couple thousand miles on a car per year, then it's quite a few years before you net lower carbon footprint.  And, to worsen the carbon picture, selling your old IC car means someone on a tight budget can now afford one and starts driving yours and quite possibly putting higher miles on it.

The upside of that gloomy picture, however is that electrics look to be fairly long lasting, so when I die someone will be able to buy an affordable used EV.   

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Not sure.
But our Canadian Government talks big when it comes to addressing AGW, but does very little.
I am seriously considering going electric for my next vehicle, but unless the Government re-invests gasoline taxes and carbon taxes into the infrastructure needed for EV operation in a country as 'distributed' as Canada, it may turn out to be a very impractical decision.

It doesn't help that many provinces have still tied themselves heavily to fossil fuels. At least politically. At least silently they try to diversify a bit away from non-renewables, but it is a very slow process. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Dropship said:

 

I'm neutral at the moment not knowing which camp to believe so I'm hoping to educate myself by getting some sage guidance and wisdom from SF's finest brains..:)

 

4 hours ago, Dropship said:

 

Can we trust any external site, no matter what it says?

Discussion forums like SF therefore serve a very useful purpose by discussing things among members themselves.

We know there have been a cycle of ice ages and thaws throughout earth's history, so perhaps we're currently in a "thaw" phase, hence the melting ice.

Or perhaps pollution is to blame, so we don't really know what to think? 

 

So what evidence do you need to show that human induced global warming is a valid concept and real? What would convince you? What external sites do you trust? I was of the opinion that NASA was up there with the best. Do you have any evidence to show whay that isn't true?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Dropship]

3 hours ago, beecee said:

 

So what evidence do you need to show that human induced global warming is a valid concept and real? What would convince you? What external sites do you trust? I was of the opinion that NASA was up there with the best. Do you have any evidence to show whay that isn't true?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Thanks, yes NASA confirms my gut feeling that humans are responsible for GW; I mean, all that muck being churned out by industry and private cars can't be doing the planet any good at all.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

..frankly, I would expect a retired physicist to be taking a more critical view of the issue than talking to an explorer and settling for "he said, she said" reporting.

As an ex-physicist I was one of them blokes who "shatter worlds", I don't know nothing about what makes this planet go..:)

But as humans seem to be responsible for GW, why don't they do something about it?

I hear electric cars are being touted as a partial solution, but I also hear there are serious drawbacks to them, like short-lived batteries that'll need replacing at great expense etc. 

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Now that I know you aren't going to bother educating yourself by reading trusted links I post, I'm wondering how you think discussion will help? It sounds like you're going to preach and ignore what others say, and that's basically blogging. Discussion means you actually engage with others to remove ignorance. It works beautifully, but not the way you're doing it. If you aren't listening, you're soapboxing, and why would I want to discuss science with you? No disrespect, but nobody has time for that.

 

Wait, members here have already said humans are to blame for much GW, that's all I wanted to know, thanks to all..:)

 

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, Dropship said:

Wait, members here have already said humans are to blame for much GW,

Members here are basing that on decades of scientific studies, that have been built in turn on a foundation of ever improving understanding of fundamental physics and chemistry and of understanding of climate processes. That agreement is not simply a case of our opinions being a majority here but of the majority here being familiar with what those studies have been saying.