Climate Change causes EVERYTHING, or so it now seems...

[auburnatl1 4,964]

40 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Nice try, but acid rain had a cause and effect easy to observe. Very small scale compared to global climate change. Ozone layer is nebulous at best around 3mm thick. Big problem over the poles. Cancer for everybody, at least the 42 people working there. Then..poof..all better. No more hole.

Climate change has no direct provable cause and effect.  Only fear, predictions, and modeling. I remember the predictions from the seventies also. Ice age imminent. Oops, no it’s a heat wave. 

Fair and I get the crying wolf stuff. But the 70s… consider the accuracy of hurricane tracking today vs even 10 years ago.  Much the less 50. The cone of tracking accuracy several days out is narrowing each year.  Within 100 miles. In the 70s they barely had satellites and it was guesswork.

Predictive computer modeling aided by AI, in any field, is becoming formidable. That includes co2 based warming analytics.
 

[Leftfield 2,610]

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nice try, but acid rain had a cause and effect easy to observe. 

Yet there were still people who denied for years that it was a problem. I'd be willing to bet you were one of them. Reagan was, too, until he was finally convinced. It took more than 20 years for legislation to be passed to address this "easy to observe" problem.

 

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Very small scale compared to global climate change.

Ah....so since warming is much more difficult to address, we should just ignore it, right?

 

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Ozone layer is nebulous at best around 3mm thick. Big problem over the poles. Cancer for everybody, at least the 42 people working there. Then..poof..all better. No more hole.

"Poof?" It still isn't back to normal, and won't be for decades. As you pointed out, the hole is usually over sparsely populated areas, so we don't hear much about it. If it had kept growing, we certainly would. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, at least minds like yours, who refuse to believe that anything that doesn't directly affect them is a problem.

 

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Climate change has no direct provable cause and effect. 

We've been over this. And over this more. You've never given any other reason for the cause, you just say it's not greenhouse gases. I'd ask you again for a cause, but guessing we'll just get your "the climate has always changed" response.

By the way, climate change is the effect.

 

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

 Only fear, predictions, and modeling.

Which has been proving out, but you refuse to notice.

 

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I remember the predictions from the seventies also. Ice age imminent. Oops, no it’s a heat wave. 

Of course you remember. I was born in the seventies and even I remember. The difference is you hold on to predictions, from 50 years ago, that weren't even close to universal acceptance. There were plenty of scientists that disagreed, and the articles from the time point that out. The only reason you keep going back to them is because they fit your narrative about science not knowing what the hell it's talking about. 

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Yet there were still people who denied for years that it was a problem. I'd be willing to bet you were one of them. Reagan was, too, until he was finally convinced. It took more than 20 years for legislation to be passed to address this "easy to observe" problem.

I don’t know what other people believed or denied about acid rain. It was a relatively small area affected and was easily diagnosed. I don’t remember what Reagan said about it or care at this point. It does take a while to get legislation passed. I believe the response was effective and the problem is under control. That would seem to be a success story but you seem to think it wasn’t.

Ah....so since warming is much more difficult to address, we should just ignore it, right?

No by all means don’t ignore it. Try to find a verifiable cause and effect and initiate a comprehensive remedy that will significantly reduce the problem. That’s what we don’t have yet, despite all the rhetoric about farting cows, fossil fuels, permafrost, and private jet travel (oh wait that one doesn’t count).

"Poof?" It still isn't back to normal, and won't be for decades. As you pointed out, the hole is usually over sparsely populated areas, so we don't hear much about it. If it had kept growing, we certainly would. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, at least minds like yours, who refuse to believe that anything that doesn't directly affect them is a problem.

Check out eea.europa.eu topics in depth current state of ozone layer. Interesting article. Greenhouse gases actually cause the hole to get smaller in some areas of the globe, and the hole is made larger by cooler temperatures over the poles. They committed a foul though when they said “…greenhouse gases are thought to lead to warmer temperatures…” Ouch.

 

We've been over this. And over this more. You've never given any other reason for the cause, you just say it's not greenhouse gases. I'd ask you again for a cause, but guessing we'll just get your "the climate has always changed" response.

By the way, climate change is the effect.

If there is a cause aside from normal climate fluctuation that has occurred historically, the please promote one.  You just don’t have one that is provable scientifically.  I can prove scientifically that the climate of the planet does change as it has for all of its history. That is fact. The cause is not fact. Does there need to be a cause? When you mess with Mother Nature you could get some pretty serious unintended consequences.

Great line though. Climate change is the effect..of climate change.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Which has been proving out, but you refuse to notice.

 

Of course you remember. I was born in the seventies and even I remember. The difference is you hold on to predictions, from 50 years ago, that weren't even close to universal acceptance. There were plenty of scientists that disagreed, and the articles from the time point that out. The only reason you keep going back to them is because they fit your narrative about science not knowing what the hell it's talking about. 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

This guy must be a flat earther:

 

Or could he just be a guy that wants give a little more thought into what we are doing and not ruin our economy and plunge into a guess due to empirical science?

[Leftfield 2,610]

I don’t know what other people believed or denied about acid rain. It was a relatively small area affected and was easily diagnosed. I don’t remember what Reagan said about it or care at this point. It does take a while to get legislation passed. I believe the response was effective and the problem is under control. That would seem to be a success story but you seem to think it wasn’t.

Did you believe it?

Small area relative to what? Should it not have mattered to the areas that were affected by it? Would the affected area not have increased if we had done nothing?

Of course you don't care what Reagan thought, because you never experienced any major effects from the issue. You say it takes a while to get legislation passed. While true, do you not think that the legislation would have been passed earlier had some people not taken so long to be convinced?

Can't understand why you wrote those last two sentences, because it's the very point I was trying to make. Governments finally recognized the problem and implemented a solution that worked, after years of many people claiming it wasn't a problem. Do you not see a parallel with the present situation?

 

No by all means don’t ignore it. Try to find a verifiable cause and effect and initiate a comprehensive remedy that will significantly reduce the problem. That’s what we don’t have yet, despite all the rhetoric about farting cows, fossil fuels, permafrost, and private jet travel (oh wait that one doesn’t count).

Cause: Increased emissions and therefore concentration of CO2 (and some others) in the atmosphere traps some heat that would normally be radiated into space.

Effect: The planet warms.

It's that simple. I don't know why you keep saying that's not verifiable. A simple science experiment can prove CO2 traps infrared heat. No one disputes it, yet all the people here who don't believe the atmosphere is warming do so in spite of this well-established fact.

There are solutions, but anything proposed is shouted down by those who don't believe there's a problem. Or they just have the "you ain't takin' my truck" mentality. In truth, individual action can't do much, but getting politicians in place that can affect legislation/budgeting can. That doesn't mean you have to vote Democrat - there are Republican politicians that support such legislation, but they can't get any traction because the vast majority of skeptics are in the Republican party.

 

Check out eea.europa.eu topics in depth current state of ozone layer. Interesting article. Greenhouse gases actually cause the hole to get smaller in some areas of the globe, and the hole is made larger by cooler temperatures over the poles. They committed a foul though when they said “…greenhouse gases are thought to lead to warmer temperatures…” Ouch.

It is an interesting article, but I have no idea why you pointed it out other than you think the line about greenhouse gases is somehow an own goal. Even with that, you're cherry picking one sentence from an entire website that clearly advocates for action to mitigate emissions that cause both warming and ozone depletion.

 

If there is a cause aside from normal climate fluctuation that has occurred historically, the please promote one.  You just don’t have one that is provable scientifically.  I can prove scientifically that the climate of the planet does change as it has for all of its history. That is fact. The cause is not fact. Does there need to be a cause? When you mess with Mother Nature you could get some pretty serious unintended consequences.

As predicted, there's your "the climate has always changed" argument. Thanks for obliging.

The key here is in your first sentence, where you say "normal climate fluctuation." The entire point, which skeptics keep ignoring, is that the change we're seeing now is not normal. The climate is warming much faster than it should be.

An ironic final sentence, because spewing pollutants into the environment for more than 100 years is in fact messing with Mother Nature. The solutions being proposed simply try to stop messing with her. What's sad is that you can't seem to recognize that.

 

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Great line though. Climate change is the effect..of climate change.

I'm really trying to not attack your intelligence, but you're making it very, very difficult.

[homersapien 11,388]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Nice try, but acid rain had a cause and effect easy to observe. Very small scale compared to global climate change. Ozone layer is nebulous at best around 3mm thick. Big problem over the poles. Cancer for everybody, at least the 42 people working there. Then..poof..all better. No more hole.

Climate change has no direct provable cause and effect.  Only fear, predictions, and modeling. I remember the predictions from the seventies also. Ice age imminent. Oops, no it’s a heat wave. 

What a totally ignorant statement.

Both the ozone and the acid rain problem - exactly like global warming - were defined and based on the same thing.  Direct observation, data collection and yes, computer modeling.

You have zero grasp of science and how it works.

[homersapien 11,388]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Climate change has no direct provable cause and effect.  Only fear, predictions, and modeling. I remember the predictions from the seventies also. Ice age imminent. Oops, no it’s a heat wave. 

You persist in demonstrating your ignorance.

There was no such prediction by the scientific community.  That "hoax" come from a fake Time magazine cover in 1977 - not a scientific journal.

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

8 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Yet there were still people who denied for years that it was a problem. I'd be willing to bet you were one of them. Reagan was, too, until he was finally convinced. It took more than 20 years for legislation to be passed to address this "easy to observe" problem.

 

Ah....so since warming is much more difficult to address, we should just ignore it, right?

 

"Poof?" It still isn't back to normal, and won't be for decades. As you pointed out, the hole is usually over sparsely populated areas, so we don't hear much about it. If it had kept growing, we certainly would. Out of sight, out of mind. Well, at least minds like yours, who refuse to believe that anything that doesn't directly affect them is a problem.

 

We've been over this. And over this more. You've never given any other reason for the cause, you just say it's not greenhouse gases. I'd ask you again for a cause, but guessing we'll just get your "the climate has always changed" response.

By the way, climate change is the effect.

 

Which has been proving out, but you refuse to notice.

 

Of course you remember. I was born in the seventies and even I remember. The difference is you hold on to predictions, from 50 years ago, that weren't even close to universal acceptance. There were plenty of scientists that disagreed, and the articles from the time point that out. The only reason you keep going back to them is because they fit your narrative about science not knowing what the hell it's talking about. 

 

 

Thanks for your patience and diligence to parse these ignorant posts.  Your a better man than me.

Edited April 11 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,426]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

You persist in demonstrating your ignorance.

There was no such prediction by the scientific community.  That "hoax" come from a fake Time magazine cover in 1977 - not a scientific journal.

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worr

I reigned this one in. It is just the beginning of another dismissive s*** storm like almost everything on this forum.

Try again...

https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

 

Edited April 12 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,388]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I reigned this one in. It is just the beginning of another dismissive s*** storm like almost everything on this forum.

Try again...

https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

 

I have no idea of WTF you are talking about, other than IM4 liked it. 'Nuff said.

Edited April 12 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,426]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

I have no idea of WTF you are talking about, other than IM4 liked it. 'Nuff said.

Thanks for proving me correct yet again. You stated that "The Looming Ice Age" was sourced just from the picture on the cover of Time. Of course, you simply dismiss all the facts and quotes in the article tied to the pic because that's what you do. I showed various others that quoted scientists and researchers, some of whom are quoted and write for Skeptical Science even now as the sources for  "The Looming Ice Age" claims.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Thanks for proving me correct yet again. You stated that "The Looming Ice Age" was sourced just from the picture on the cover of Time. Of course, you simply dismiss all the facts and quotes in the article tied to the pic because that's what you do. I showed various others that quoted scientists and researchers, some of whom are quoted and write for Skeptical Science even now as the sources for  "The Looming Ice Age" claims.

I would like this post, but it seems I have a stalker.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:53 AM, DKW 86 said:

I reigned this one in. It is just the beginning of another dismissive s*** storm like almost everything on this forum.

Try again...

https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

 

Thanks for supporting my argument.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

Historic video: