32 ms·

Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm [pdf]

vladimirralev 8y ago
I invite everybody to watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.
- skosch 8y ago
  Please abstain from propagating the "both sides" nonsense. One can admit to degrees of model uncertainty without insinuating that climate change is a matter of opinion.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    How can you even say that? Climate science has uncertainty. There are definitely still things being debated.
    - Symmetry 8y ago
      Would you be willing to play Russian Roulette with a revolver with four bullets in the chambers just because there's uncertainty about whether the gun would go off when you pulled the trigger? Yes, there's a chance that climate change is going to no big deal. The most likely future occurrence is that things go the way the sober scientists at the IPCC give in their median prediction - a disaster but an eminently manageable disaster. The bit threat is that uncertainty goes both ways and climate change could very well end up being much worse than our median estimates. That's what keeps me up at night instead of urging more efforts go towards mitigation.
      - vladimirralev 8y ago
        Just watch the video. They talk about all of this. I don't understand why I am getting so many nasty comments especially when those points are addressed in this video. Both guys are serious scientists and respect each other while feeling completely embarrassed by the zealots. You talk about the russian roulette with climate, but the issue is far more complicated. There are bunch of other russian roulettes to consider with policy and society. What if society needs carbon to run the economy and keep the jobs and peace? What if oil-dependent countries collapse and turn to war, terrorism or mass-migration? Those are substantial risks that can kill many people and affect the quality of life for the worse globally too. You see what happened in France when they raised the fuel tax. It's not hard to imagine some worse scenarios.
        Symmetry 8y ago
        Ok, I finally watched the video and I don't think it was worth my time at all. It was nice that they were polite to each other but really we have understood the basics of how increased C02 causes global warming for about a century. Current detailed climate models are kind of crap, Nate Silver went into why in some detail in his book on modeling, The Signal and the Noise, which I recommend but that doesn't change the anything I said in the above post - climate models are as likely to undershoot the dangers of warming as they are to overshoot them. Christy basically seemed to be arguing that there's uncertainty so he was permitted to believe what he wanted to. That's not a rational way to approach problems, especially given how he exaggerated the nature of the uncertainty.
        vladimirralev 8y ago
        I think you need to watch it again, because your summary sounds just wrong. Both scientists agreed completely that humans caused CO2 raise and it caused warming. All the actual arguments are way way past those basic facts that are agreed upon. Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why are you ignoring this point? You don't think it's important? If climate models are as likely to undershoot then how do you explain that ALL the best models in consideration overshot the last 30 years and not a single model undershot? If it was just as likely shouldn't we be seeing some models undershooting?
    - Comevius 8y ago
      Climate change has uncertainty, but climate change itself or that it is caused by human activities proved to be very certain. We are quite far beyond that.
    - avmich 8y ago
      Everything has uncertainty, even the reality of the world. We usually don't debate things which are "certain enough".
      - randyrand 8y ago
        Not ever detail of climate change is certain. Some details are still up to speculation. The big picture seems pretty certain tho
- Comevius 8y ago
  There are literally no 2 sides. There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagre.... John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
  - yters 8y ago
    Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory
    - Comevius 8y ago
      It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
      - yters 8y ago
        It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
- jimjansen1 8y ago
  Do you also listen to debates on both sides of the Flat Earth Debate? Or the Moon Landing Debate? The scientific consensus is overwhelming and spending even a second debating or listening to climate change deniers is a dangerous waste of time.
- jimjimjim 8y ago
  Should people eat broken glass? let's hear from both sides!
  - robotrout 8y ago
    There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible for temperature increases on Earth, Mars, Triton, Jupiter, and Pluto. While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation. It's really not as clear cut as you have been taught.
    - Comevius 8y ago
      "There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible" The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent. "It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation." Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny. "Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.” "If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
      - robotrout 8y ago
        From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation This is a major effect, confirmed by your own article. I'm not certain why you linked it, since you are arguing against cosmic rays effecting cloud formation.
- trhway 8y ago
  >both sides i'm still to hear the "other side" of CO2 molecules absorption spectrum, specifically in infrared. 200 years and still no such "other side" ... https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm "Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. "
strict9 8y ago
Skimmed through this, but I can't make it all the way. It's so jarring and too depressing. I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.
- ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
  I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    > the many scientists ... caused by other factors than the man-made How many of those are in climate related sciences? "many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    I agree, but I think you know the answer to the question you asked. It's a little sad to me for "the side of science" to fall into such religious belief. Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.
    - jibal 8y ago
      Invariably, climate science deniers talk about politics and economics.
      - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
logjammin 8y ago
I'm in my thirties. I don't have kids, but want them. I don't want to admit to them that I did nothing about global warming when it counted. The thing is that I don't know what I should do; it seems so big, so intractable. Articles like these stir me to action, but what action? Where's the mass movement on this? Where's the group, the party, the leadership?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Extinction Rebellion seems the best chance of a movement that may actually achieve something. If they get critical mass. Early signs are promising (They only started this year). UK: https://rebellion.earth/ https://rebellion.earth/ Globally: https://xrebellion.org/ https://xrebellion.org/
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    so just be angry?
- nostromo 8y ago
  Since you mention it, the best thing you can do for future generations is not have kids. The evidence is crystal clear in that regard.
  - Voloskaya 8y ago
    But then how do you tell your kids what you did to combat climate change, since that was the question?
  - francisofascii 8y ago
    It is possible to live net carbon negative. Or at least close to carbon neutral. https://www.ecowatch.com/this-country-isnt-just-carbon-neutral-its-carbon-negative-1882195367.html https://www.ecowatch.com/this-country-isnt-just-carbon-neutr...
    - nostromo 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
After solving global warming, should we be more concerned by the approaching end of the current interglacial period? The next glacial period of the current Ice Age is going to be terrible for our stage of technology and civilization. If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an Ice Age?
- jimjansen1 8y ago
  Seriously fuck off.
- yters 8y ago
  This is an interesting question. Haven't there been much warmer periods in our planet's history that were followed by an ice age? It is hard to sort out exactly what climate change means.
  - Comevius 8y ago
    Those warming periods are either local, are much, much slower and they are not supposed to be in sync with human activities either. This one is much faster. Not everyone sees it of course. Change blindness is what they call it. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler?t=1531204154500&t=1537827635100&t=1544136887700 https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...
    - ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
      This is not a correct description of past climate changes. The glacial and interglacial periods of the last 2.5 million years have been global and swinging temperatures by 6-9°C in either direction, with periods between 40-100k years. During the last interglacial (Eemian, ca. 129–116k years ago) sea level was 6-9 meters higher than today; Scandinavia was an island. The water temperature of the North Sea was about 2°C higher than at present; hippos lived as far North as the Rhine and the Thames. The onset of the Eemian took just a few centuries, during which global temperatures shot up >5°C.
rapjr9 8y ago
Some constructive criticism: I think this document is written backwards and does not contain what CEO's are interested in. The disastrous effects should come first and preceding that should be forecasts of the effect on the bottom line (profits). The business implications of climate change are what might capture their attention. Market disruptions for example, trends in adoption of EV cars, growth in solar and wind, tech industry use of alternative energy, costs for pollution being added to government and other plans, current problems with changes in forests and their effects on industry, plans to deal with coastal changes. Changes in behavior from industry and government are more likely to sway them. They attempt to control those, but a list of existing trends that are outside their control could be persuasive. They have hired scientists to confuse the issue, so they are not going to be swayed by a scientific argument. Leave that as an appendix for their subordinates to read. It's unfortunate, but I think you have to speak their language.
- sgt101 8y ago
  My experience is that CEO's don't need persuading on this issue, they are convinced but their fiduciary duties limit the scope of their actions. What they would like is sharp, clear regulation that provided a level playing field. The people who need persuading are voters.
  - rapjr9 8y ago
    Hansen does say in the document "My target is the level of a Chief Justice or a fossil fuel industry CEO", so I was thinking of fossil fuel industry CEO's (who probably have never experienced a level playing field). Voters need someone already persuaded to vote for; I think polls show the voters themselves weigh on the convinced side. Fiduciary duties are only part of what a CEO should be concerned about, but certainly major changes in what other industries are doing should be part of fiduciary duty. Like VW saying they are going to drop internal combustion engines in the near future, forest blight affecting logging, Apple and Google going solar, real estate trends in coastal areas, cities creating climate change plans, and more.
itry2develop 8y ago
The "storm" has supposedly been gathering since 1990 and all of the predictions have proven false. It's the only failed theory we are not supposed to question... just pay your carbon tax and shut up!
randyrand 8y ago
I've long been in the camp that we worry about climate change more than makes rational sense. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be our primary means of fighting it. Other cities will be raised, like Chicago was in the 1850s. FUD is not a genuine approach to invoke action - which has sadly been the main approach of many. We should remain reasoned.
- ams6110 8y ago
  I think very few people actually worry about it. That's not representative of the people who post here, but just looking around at how people live and the cars they drive and the homes they build and businesses running 24x7 with all the lights on, parking lots lit up all night after stores are closed, towns wasting many kilowatt hours on Christmas lighting, etc. I see no real evidence that anyone but a small minority of people are even thinking about it, much less worrying.
- yters 8y ago
  If we were truly concerned, we should work on eliminating water vapor, since that accounts for much more of the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Or, pump out even more carbon dioxide to increase the warming and water vapor, and hence increase cloud cover to cool the earth.
  - ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
    Provocatively worded... but intriguing from an engineering POV: if it is too late to limit CO2 levels and return to pre-industrial levels, what levers do we have to control water vapor levels?
    - yongjik 8y ago
      Nothing. Water vapor is always in equilibrium with oceans on the timescale of weeks. In other words, any excessive water vapor you manage to put into the atmosphere will simply rain down. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-...
apo 8y ago
The problem with many discussions around global warming is not scientific, but cultural. Advocates of change often take a sanctimonious attitude toward anyone expressing the slightest doubt. Have a look at the episodes of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World" on climate change. If you can watch without cringing, congratulations. I can't. Or take this interview Nye did with Tucker Carlsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo Nye, and those who share his intolerant attitude toward justified skepticism do their cause more harm than good. Every hypothesis should be questioned. The more sweeping the claims, the more pointed the questioning should be. Science is not immune to groupthink. The problem is magnified when a scientific hypothesis takes on a political dimension. Take this quote from the article: Climate has always been changing, but humans are now the principal drive for climate change, overwhelming natural climate variability. I challenge any reader of the article to find a clear, logical, undeniable chain of evidence from hypothesis to the conclusion that humans are responsible for rising planet temperatures.
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Who cares what Bill Nye says or thinks.
  - apo 8y ago
    Science has very few recognizable public faces. Nye, and Niel Tyson are two of them. When these people say something about science, for better or worse, they speaks for science in many people's minds.
    - Brakenshire 8y ago
      A lot of people would take advice from someone who played a doctor on tv. Bill Nye is a childrens entertainer. His opinions I’m sure are not well founded, but it simply doesn’t matter. His opinion either way should be totally irrelevant to your judgment of the case.
- skosch 8y ago
  If this was 1980, then I'd be right with you. But it's 2018. We've had 40 years of unmistakable data, and at this point, anyone pushing this "the science isn't settled" talking point – adopted from the tobacco industry – either has a vested interest in denialism or simply falls really far left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
nabla9 8y ago
I still remember watching TV in early 90's and seeing clips from Hansen's 1988 senate testimony and hearing first time the "Now is the last time to act on climate change." from someone in TV. Key numbers to get the point across. * Starting mitigation in 2000 would have required mitigation rate 4%/year. (1.5 C goal) * Starting mitigation in 2018 will require mitigation rate 18%/year. 18 percent! (1.5 C goal). There is no realistic scenario where this can happen. * Nine years from now complete halt of all manmade CO2 emissions is too late to prevent crossing 1.5C. * Global fossil and cement CO2 emissions keep going up, not down: http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFuel_and_Cement_emissions_1990.png http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFu... * CO2 mitigation curve becomes steeper and steeper. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigation_Curves_1.5C.png http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigati...
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  One thing I’d be interested to read is the difference between 1.5C and, say, 2.5C of warming. Do you know of any reports (or maybe just part of the IPCC reports) which lay out the incremental risks? I just read for instance an editorial from nature which said that 10-30% of coral reefs survive at 1.5C but none survive at 2C. I’d like more of that kind of information to understand the risk profile.
  - nabla9 8y ago
    carbonbrief.org has interactive comparison between 1.5C, 2C and 3C. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-o...
    - Brakenshire 8y ago
      Perfect, sincerely thank you for the link.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Climate discussion now seems to come from Yes, Prime Minister. (1986). We appear to be at stage 3. I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both political sides, agree there is an issue, and want constructive solutions[0]. Some more US-like differences at the margins, and differences in urgency, but there appears to be a broad consensus among the public. Less so amongst politicians themselves. Does political consensus no longer exist on any issues in the US any more? Is all science politicised? Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage one we say nothing is going to happen." Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it." Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do." Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now." [0] http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-supports-uk-climate-leadership/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-suppo...
- jibal 8y ago
  In the U.S. and apparently also in Australia, it's all politicized by the right wing climate science deniers, who have swallowed petrol industry propaganda, who view the embrace of basic science by anyone, regardless of their actual place on the political spectrum, as an Obama/Clinton/"libtard" hoax aimed at taxing their precious wallets and taking away their freedom. You can see it in the comments here denying climate science and making false claims about the existence of "many scientists" who disagree with the consensus and think there are other causes of climate change, ignorant nonsense about coming ice ages, and so on.

I invite everybody to watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY A calm, collected, scientific representation of both sides.

skosch 8y ago
Please abstain from propagating the "both sides" nonsense. One can admit to degrees of model uncertainty without insinuating that climate change is a matter of opinion.
- randyrand 8y ago
  How can you even say that? Climate science has uncertainty. There are definitely still things being debated.
  - Symmetry 8y ago
    Would you be willing to play Russian Roulette with a revolver with four bullets in the chambers just because there's uncertainty about whether the gun would go off when you pulled the trigger? Yes, there's a chance that climate change is going to no big deal. The most likely future occurrence is that things go the way the sober scientists at the IPCC give in their median prediction - a disaster but an eminently manageable disaster. The bit threat is that uncertainty goes both ways and climate change could very well end up being much worse than our median estimates. That's what keeps me up at night instead of urging more efforts go towards mitigation.
    - vladimirralev 8y ago
      Just watch the video. They talk about all of this. I don't understand why I am getting so many nasty comments especially when those points are addressed in this video. Both guys are serious scientists and respect each other while feeling completely embarrassed by the zealots. You talk about the russian roulette with climate, but the issue is far more complicated. There are bunch of other russian roulettes to consider with policy and society. What if society needs carbon to run the economy and keep the jobs and peace? What if oil-dependent countries collapse and turn to war, terrorism or mass-migration? Those are substantial risks that can kill many people and affect the quality of life for the worse globally too. You see what happened in France when they raised the fuel tax. It's not hard to imagine some worse scenarios.
      - Symmetry 8y ago
        Ok, I finally watched the video and I don't think it was worth my time at all. It was nice that they were polite to each other but really we have understood the basics of how increased C02 causes global warming for about a century. Current detailed climate models are kind of crap, Nate Silver went into why in some detail in his book on modeling, The Signal and the Noise, which I recommend but that doesn't change the anything I said in the above post - climate models are as likely to undershoot the dangers of warming as they are to overshoot them. Christy basically seemed to be arguing that there's uncertainty so he was permitted to believe what he wanted to. That's not a rational way to approach problems, especially given how he exaggerated the nature of the uncertainty.
        vladimirralev 8y ago
        I think you need to watch it again, because your summary sounds just wrong. Both scientists agreed completely that humans caused CO2 raise and it caused warming. All the actual arguments are way way past those basic facts that are agreed upon. Did you listen when they agreed that proposed measures will not stop ocean water levels from rising? Did you listen to the cost-benefit analysis and socio-economic impact? Why are you ignoring this point? You don't think it's important? If climate models are as likely to undershoot then how do you explain that ALL the best models in consideration overshot the last 30 years and not a single model undershot? If it was just as likely shouldn't we be seeing some models undershooting?
  - Comevius 8y ago
    Climate change has uncertainty, but climate change itself or that it is caused by human activities proved to be very certain. We are quite far beyond that.
  - avmich 8y ago
    Everything has uncertainty, even the reality of the world. We usually don't debate things which are "certain enough".
    - randyrand 8y ago
      Not ever detail of climate change is certain. Some details are still up to speculation. The big picture seems pretty certain tho
Comevius 8y ago
There are literally no 2 sides. There is a ~97% scientific consensus, then there are these people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagre.... John Christy (the other side in your video) represents the ~3%. His research was shown to be wrong over and over again. Most recently in 2017: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
- yters 8y ago
  Check out this wikipedia page that casts scientific consensus in a slightly different light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theory
  - Comevius 8y ago
    It's a good thing that theories are superseeded, as they are supposed to be testable and falsifiable. Our understanding of climate change is being superseeded literally on a daily basis. That's what the ~97% represents. It's like Newtonian physics. The people who say that climate change is a hoax either don't follow the scientific method or make predictions that are being falsified over and over by the ~97%. It's not the consensus that matters, it's the testability.
    - yters 8y ago
      It'd be pretty interesting to see a comprehensive view of the falsifiable claims made and what the results are. In fact, a completely open data source and algorithm repository with full documentation on how all data is gathered and processed would certainly help persuade skeptics like myself. A number of years ago when the engineer leaked the internal data dump from the climate researchers, it certainly did not change my view in a favorable direction seeing that material :P
jimjansen1 8y ago
Do you also listen to debates on both sides of the Flat Earth Debate? Or the Moon Landing Debate? The scientific consensus is overwhelming and spending even a second debating or listening to climate change deniers is a dangerous waste of time.
jimjimjim 8y ago
Should people eat broken glass? let's hear from both sides!
- robotrout 8y ago
  There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible for temperature increases on Earth, Mars, Triton, Jupiter, and Pluto. While CO2 promoters point out the fact that solar irradiance changes are relatively small over time, they ignore that those same irradiance changes correspond to changes in solar magnetism, which means changes in cosmic ray incidence on planetary atmospheres. It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation. It's really not as clear cut as you have been taught.
  - Comevius 8y ago
    "There are many scientists that believe solar forcing is responsible" The solar constant in the past 400 years has varied less than 0.2 percent. "It is well known that cosmic rays effect cloud formation." Not well known, because the research is still ongoing. Henrik Svensmark's research in a dust- and impurity-free atmosphere contributed to our understanding of aerosol microphysics, but others agree that the effect in the real, present-day atmosphere is very tiny. "Cosmic particles would be negligible compared with the background aerosol and the aerosol humans are adding by burning things, tilling soil, etc.” "If clouds were affected by cosmic rays, they would have been affected a hundred times more strongly by human air pollution, and the world would have cooled over the past century, rather than warmed." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119
    - robotrout 8y ago
      From your quoted article. This work offers a new understanding of global particle formation as based almost entirely on ternary rather than binary nucleation, with ions playing a major but subdominant role. Our results suggest that about 43% of cloud-forming aerosol particles in the present-day atmosphere originate from nucleation This is a major effect, confirmed by your own article. I'm not certain why you linked it, since you are arguing against cosmic rays effecting cloud formation.
trhway 8y ago
>both sides i'm still to hear the "other side" of CO2 molecules absorption spectrum, specifically in infrared. 200 years and still no such "other side" ... https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm "Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. "

strict9 8y ago

Skimmed through this, but I can't make it all the way. It's so jarring and too depressing. I lump climate change deniers into the same category as flat-earthers. Although I have more respect for the latter, as at least they aren't blindly swallowing self-serving nonsense spewed by ignorant politicians and certain news outlets.

ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
I don't think there are scientists who deny past or present climate change. Do you mean to disparage the many scientists who research the causes of past climate change, and who hypothesize that the current changes are, like all past changes, caused by other factors than the man-made, industrial-age rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  > the many scientists ... caused by other factors than the man-made How many of those are in climate related sciences? "many"? The consensus amongst scientists in the relevant fields is quite compelling.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  I agree, but I think you know the answer to the question you asked. It's a little sad to me for "the side of science" to fall into such religious belief. Especially when the "side of science" has become so extremely tied to the idea that the only real solution is taxes that one political side has come up with and of course voting for them. And if you question the tax side of things, you're a filthy denier.
  - jibal 8y ago
    Invariably, climate science deniers talk about politics and economics.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

logjammin 8y ago

I'm in my thirties. I don't have kids, but want them. I don't want to admit to them that I did nothing about global warming when it counted. The thing is that I don't know what I should do; it seems so big, so intractable. Articles like these stir me to action, but what action? Where's the mass movement on this? Where's the group, the party, the leadership?

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Extinction Rebellion seems the best chance of a movement that may actually achieve something. If they get critical mass. Early signs are promising (They only started this year). UK: https://rebellion.earth/ https://rebellion.earth/ Globally: https://xrebellion.org/ https://xrebellion.org/
- claydavisss 8y ago
  so just be angry?
nostromo 8y ago
Since you mention it, the best thing you can do for future generations is not have kids. The evidence is crystal clear in that regard.
- Voloskaya 8y ago
  But then how do you tell your kids what you did to combat climate change, since that was the question?
- francisofascii 8y ago
  It is possible to live net carbon negative. Or at least close to carbon neutral. https://www.ecowatch.com/this-country-isnt-just-carbon-neutral-its-carbon-negative-1882195367.html https://www.ecowatch.com/this-country-isnt-just-carbon-neutr...
  - nostromo 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ilove_banh_mi 8y ago

After solving global warming, should we be more concerned by the approaching end of the current interglacial period? The next glacial period of the current Ice Age is going to be terrible for our stage of technology and civilization. If we are serious about the current issues of climate change, and about potential asteroid impacts, why should we not also be planning for the mid- to long-term risk of the return to an Ice Age?

jimjansen1 8y ago
Seriously fuck off.
yters 8y ago
This is an interesting question. Haven't there been much warmer periods in our planet's history that were followed by an ice age? It is hard to sort out exactly what climate change means.
- Comevius 8y ago
  Those warming periods are either local, are much, much slower and they are not supposed to be in sync with human activities either. This one is much faster. Not everyone sees it of course. Change blindness is what they call it. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler?t=1531204154500&t=1537827635100&t=1544136887700 https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/b...
  - ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
    This is not a correct description of past climate changes. The glacial and interglacial periods of the last 2.5 million years have been global and swinging temperatures by 6-9°C in either direction, with periods between 40-100k years. During the last interglacial (Eemian, ca. 129–116k years ago) sea level was 6-9 meters higher than today; Scandinavia was an island. The water temperature of the North Sea was about 2°C higher than at present; hippos lived as far North as the Rhine and the Thames. The onset of the Eemian took just a few centuries, during which global temperatures shot up >5°C.

rapjr9 8y ago

Some constructive criticism: I think this document is written backwards and does not contain what CEO's are interested in. The disastrous effects should come first and preceding that should be forecasts of the effect on the bottom line (profits). The business implications of climate change are what might capture their attention. Market disruptions for example, trends in adoption of EV cars, growth in solar and wind, tech industry use of alternative energy, costs for pollution being added to government and other plans, current problems with changes in forests and their effects on industry, plans to deal with coastal changes. Changes in behavior from industry and government are more likely to sway them. They attempt to control those, but a list of existing trends that are outside their control could be persuasive. They have hired scientists to confuse the issue, so they are not going to be swayed by a scientific argument. Leave that as an appendix for their subordinates to read. It's unfortunate, but I think you have to speak their language.

sgt101 8y ago
My experience is that CEO's don't need persuading on this issue, they are convinced but their fiduciary duties limit the scope of their actions. What they would like is sharp, clear regulation that provided a level playing field. The people who need persuading are voters.
- rapjr9 8y ago
  Hansen does say in the document "My target is the level of a Chief Justice or a fossil fuel industry CEO", so I was thinking of fossil fuel industry CEO's (who probably have never experienced a level playing field). Voters need someone already persuaded to vote for; I think polls show the voters themselves weigh on the convinced side. Fiduciary duties are only part of what a CEO should be concerned about, but certainly major changes in what other industries are doing should be part of fiduciary duty. Like VW saying they are going to drop internal combustion engines in the near future, forest blight affecting logging, Apple and Google going solar, real estate trends in coastal areas, cities creating climate change plans, and more.

itry2develop 8y ago

The "storm" has supposedly been gathering since 1990 and all of the predictions have proven false. It's the only failed theory we are not supposed to question... just pay your carbon tax and shut up!

randyrand 8y ago

I've long been in the camp that we worry about climate change more than makes rational sense. I'm not saying we should ignore it, but we often overstate. It's worth remembering that the effects on QoL will be completely eclipsed by technological progress within that period and that the timescales that GW happen over (50+ years) are long enough that most people will hardly ever notice it. Gradual relocation will be our primary means of fighting it. Other cities will be raised, like Chicago was in the 1850s. FUD is not a genuine approach to invoke action - which has sadly been the main approach of many. We should remain reasoned.

ams6110 8y ago
I think very few people actually worry about it. That's not representative of the people who post here, but just looking around at how people live and the cars they drive and the homes they build and businesses running 24x7 with all the lights on, parking lots lit up all night after stores are closed, towns wasting many kilowatt hours on Christmas lighting, etc. I see no real evidence that anyone but a small minority of people are even thinking about it, much less worrying.
yters 8y ago
If we were truly concerned, we should work on eliminating water vapor, since that accounts for much more of the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Or, pump out even more carbon dioxide to increase the warming and water vapor, and hence increase cloud cover to cool the earth.
- ilove_banh_mi 8y ago
  Provocatively worded... but intriguing from an engineering POV: if it is too late to limit CO2 levels and return to pre-industrial levels, what levers do we have to control water vapor levels?
  - yongjik 8y ago
    Nothing. Water vapor is always in equilibrium with oceans on the timescale of weeks. In other words, any excessive water vapor you manage to put into the atmosphere will simply rain down. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-...

apo 8y ago

The problem with many discussions around global warming is not scientific, but cultural. Advocates of change often take a sanctimonious attitude toward anyone expressing the slightest doubt. Have a look at the episodes of the Netflix series "Bill Nye Saves the World" on climate change. If you can watch without cringing, congratulations. I can't. Or take this interview Nye did with Tucker Carlsen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo Nye, and those who share his intolerant attitude toward justified skepticism do their cause more harm than good. Every hypothesis should be questioned. The more sweeping the claims, the more pointed the questioning should be. Science is not immune to groupthink. The problem is magnified when a scientific hypothesis takes on a political dimension. Take this quote from the article: Climate has always been changing, but humans are now the principal drive for climate change, overwhelming natural climate variability. I challenge any reader of the article to find a clear, logical, undeniable chain of evidence from hypothesis to the conclusion that humans are responsible for rising planet temperatures.

Brakenshire 8y ago
Who cares what Bill Nye says or thinks.
- apo 8y ago
  Science has very few recognizable public faces. Nye, and Niel Tyson are two of them. When these people say something about science, for better or worse, they speaks for science in many people's minds.
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    A lot of people would take advice from someone who played a doctor on tv. Bill Nye is a childrens entertainer. His opinions I’m sure are not well founded, but it simply doesn’t matter. His opinion either way should be totally irrelevant to your judgment of the case.
skosch 8y ago
If this was 1980, then I'd be right with you. But it's 2018. We've had 40 years of unmistakable data, and at this point, anyone pushing this "the science isn't settled" talking point – adopted from the tobacco industry – either has a vested interest in denialism or simply falls really far left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

nabla9 8y ago

I still remember watching TV in early 90's and seeing clips from Hansen's 1988 senate testimony and hearing first time the "Now is the last time to act on climate change." from someone in TV. Key numbers to get the point across. * Starting mitigation in 2000 would have required mitigation rate 4%/year. (1.5 C goal) * Starting mitigation in 2018 will require mitigation rate 18%/year. 18 percent! (1.5 C goal). There is no realistic scenario where this can happen. * Nine years from now complete halt of all manmade CO2 emissions is too late to prevent crossing 1.5C. * Global fossil and cement CO2 emissions keep going up, not down: http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFuel_and_Cement_emissions_1990.png http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s09_2018_FossilFu... * CO2 mitigation curve becomes steeper and steeper. http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigation_Curves_1.5C.png http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s00_2018_Mitigati...

Brakenshire 8y ago
One thing I’d be interested to read is the difference between 1.5C and, say, 2.5C of warming. Do you know of any reports (or maybe just part of the IPCC reports) which lay out the incremental risks? I just read for instance an editorial from nature which said that 10-30% of coral reefs survive at 1.5C but none survive at 2C. I’d like more of that kind of information to understand the risk profile.
- nabla9 8y ago
  carbonbrief.org has interactive comparison between 1.5C, 2C and 3C. https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-one-point-five-degrees-two-degrees/ https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/impacts-climate-change-o...
  - Brakenshire 8y ago
    Perfect, sincerely thank you for the link.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Climate discussion now seems to come from Yes, Prime Minister. (1986). We appear to be at stage 3. I don't understand US politics.. Most UK voters, of both political sides, agree there is an issue, and want constructive solutions[0]. Some more US-like differences at the margins, and differences in urgency, but there appears to be a broad consensus among the public. Less so amongst politicians themselves. Does political consensus no longer exist on any issues in the US any more? Is all science politicised? Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage one we say nothing is going to happen." Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it." Sir Richard Wharton: "In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do." Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now." [0] http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-supports-uk-climate-leadership/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/the-public-suppo...

jibal 8y ago
In the U.S. and apparently also in Australia, it's all politicized by the right wing climate science deniers, who have swallowed petrol industry propaganda, who view the embrace of basic science by anyone, regardless of their actual place on the political spectrum, as an Obama/Clinton/"libtard" hoax aimed at taxing their precious wallets and taking away their freedom. You can see it in the comments here denying climate science and making false claims about the existence of "many scientists" who disagree with the consensus and think there are other causes of climate change, ignorant nonsense about coming ice ages, and so on.