Perversions of open-minded thinking on climate change

[Ka-El]

I don't feel that reducing our impact on climate change is futile ... we're smart monkeys, we just need more time to find ways to save ourselves and the way to do that right now is to reduce the output in any small way that we can ...

I also believe we should be trying to find ways to reduce output, but not because we think that would have any impact on climate change. I think we would be both arrogant and naïve to believe that our ability to influence climate change would be more than minimal at best. I certainly believe we should be concerned about our air and water quality, and I believe we should continue our efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but even that will require the use of fossil fuel in the short term.

Also somewhat open-minded, scientifically literate and well read on this issue I have found that the science is still very undecided. It seems we are ignoring or discounting other explanations and my fear for humankind is that because of focusing too much attention on trying to slow something we may (probably) have very little control over, and not focusing on doing the things we really need to be doing to further prepare ourselves (see previous posts) we will suffer great consequences.

Man-made carbon dioxide is generally thought to produce global warming, but carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause (link below). But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? “Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun's electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center”

“Planetary warming has been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and on Neptune's largest moon Triton during the decades following the peak of the "Solar Grand Maximum" - wonder why - there are no humans there! This is but one indicator that suggests that the climate change on Earth is due to solar changes and our interstellar environment rather than mere human antics. More importantly, the Solar Grand Maximum is finished, now moving into a Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" is on the horizon—a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles”.

http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles-climate.html

So, while we may be heading for a cooling period, if mj is correct it is still many years (decades) away. The "Solar Grand Maximum" has ended - a fact of science most often not considered by the advocates who profess that Global Warming is caused by man-made CO2.

... but we should also be willing to agree that doing nothing is the worst choice and each one of us can take a small part in the responsibility ...

I agree that doing nothing would be a really bad choice, but I really fear that our obsession with reducing emission output is a dangerous distraction. Even if we did have some ability to slow or even influence the slowing of climate change, we are not going to get global consensus in action and climate change is going to continue. The planet will continue to get warmer, we will continue to experience an increase in droughts and forest fires and storms will continue to get more extreme. There is a ton of contradictory science out there to review on this issue, and I have reviewed a lot of it over the years. Again, I am not arguing we should not be trying to reduce our emissions or our dependence on fossil fuel, and I am certainly not arguing should let up on our research and development of alternative cleaner energy sources. Regarding the idea of climate change though, there are two things that I have come to believe for myself:

1. even if we accept humans have contributed to the acceleration of climate change, I absolutely believe our climate would be changing anyway (warming, more severe storms, etc.) and our impact is relatively minimal compared to other forces; and,

2. even more importantly, our efforts to even slow, let along stop climate change by reducing emissions will essentially be meaningless, a waste of time in that regard, and potentially self-destructive if we continue to neglect or ignore doing the things that we could and really should be doing.

[StraitTalk]

Polar sea ice has only been monitored for 36 years. How can you say that the caps have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years when this is completely unsupportable?

Pretty fair to say that 50 was a shot in the dark, 36 isn't too far off, and that's only speaking to satellite imagery.

~12% loss each decade since the late 70's suggests that it was happening even before measurements began, anyway. It may not be observed evidence, but it's certainly reasonable to say it was happening 50 years ago so I think you're cherry picking a bit on this one.

For what it's worth, my grandfather worked as a photographer with scientists in the 50's and 60's as photography was one of their best tools when measuring advancement and retreat of glaciers. I have pieces that he collected from the late 1800's. Certainly I don't have any from the polar region but there are literally dozens of pictures of glaciers. This doesn't really apply to sea ice, but I thought I'd mention it. This has reminded me I need to put them somewhere safe (not under my stairs).

Face it ... Climate change is a hoax...

Volcanoes are worse ..

How very scientific of you. You're wrong by the way. As well, even if it were true that volcanic activity surpassed human activity as a contributing factor to greenhouse gases (it doesn't and it's not even close), that doesn't even begin to prove that the added stress on the climate over-and-above volcanic activity isn't enough to tip the scales.

I could just post some papers to back this up but I think this source does a really good job of explaining it: http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/co ... nce?page=1

And to your credit, I hear that myth more than just about any other.

[The Green Barbarian]

Pretty fair to say that 50 was a shot in the dark, .

Also fair to say that it was "completely and totally wrong".

[rustled]

Some interesting things to consider re: the oft-quoted volcanic emissions data, the importance of context, etc.:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

[Queen K]

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#186032

Pump sewage waters into long played out aquifers and let the natural process of re-inflating the Earth take it's course.

I'm no Engineer, but clearly an engineer out there thinks this a viable way to keep sea levels at bay for at least one part of a coastline.

[maryjane48]

to say should reduce use but not for the reason to reduce humans output towards the problem is like saying lets invent cancer drugs but not because it can cure the disease . lunacy

[Ka-El]

to say should reduce use but not for the reason to reduce humans output towards the problem ...

Who is saying whatever it is you are saying?

What are you saying?

[Static]

Why is the Antartic Sea ice at record levels?

[Grandan]

Polar sea ice has only been monitored for 36 years. How can you say that the caps have shrunk visibly over the last 50 years when this is completely unsupportable?

The fishermen, seal hunters and others have recorded the extent of sea ice for hundreds of years. Satellites have allowed us to monitor in real time what is happening.
Remember the Franklin expedition? Caught in sea ice for years where now it is open water?

[Silverstarqueen]

Remember the Vikings? Why did they call Greenland Greenland, when we an see it's just a big block of ice? Because it used to be green. The earth's warming and cooling cycles have coincided with Solar warming and volcanic eruptions. How are we going to control that? Check out the graphic of "Global Temperatures" from thousands of years ago. Even since the last ice age (the last 20,000 years, this variation has been ongoing.

http://www.docmercury.com/rainy/dear-gl ... ing-denier

[Silverstarqueen]

As glaciers in Switzerland recede, a 4000 year old forest is revealed. Not the first time for global warming.
Alaskan glaciers are revealing 1000 year old forest.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/ ... thing-new/

[ForestfortheTrees]

Majority of scientists skeptical:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... e560e0171b

No matter which way you lean, you always need to check your sources. In my view, one of the biggest mistakes that lay-people make on both sides of the debate is posting crap that they haven't checked and what they are saying is patently incorrect.

The first sentence of the abstract states the purpose of the study:

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures.

Hmm, not really about a scientific consensus is it?

From the perspective of whether or not the consensus card can be pulled from the results, there is potentially an amount of confirmation bias in the study group. People who work in the Oil Sands.

To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.

To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada.

Also:

The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life.

Based on the framing in the original article, there is no consensus.

Please read and understand your information before you post it.

Thanks

[ForestfortheTrees]

As glaciers in Switzerland recede, a 4000 year old forest is revealed. Not the first time for global warming.
Alaskan glaciers are revealing 1000 year old forest.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/ ... thing-new/

You are falling for a logical fallacy here. Anthropogenic warming is not invalidated just because a forest existed where there is now a melting glacier. Please familiarize yourself with the Milankovitch cycles. It explains how the earth's climate changes over time and what creates ice ages and warm periods. You might be surprised to know that climate scientists know about these cycles too.

Base purely on Milankovitch cycles, we are currently in a cooling phase. So why is it getting warmer? Hmm. Maybe there's something else going on.

[ForestfortheTrees]

Why is the Antartic Sea ice at record levels?

Try - https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

The biggest difference is that the Arctic sea ice forms in a huge ocean surrounded by the northern hemisphere land masses, while the Antarctic sea ice forms as a fringe around a vast frozen continent.

"One has to say that Arctic sea ice is completely different from Antarctic sea ice, which almost melts completely back each summer," said Lars Kaleschke, an ice researcher with the Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability at the University of Hamburg. "The processes of ice formation are completely different.

[Glacier]

Try - https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052016/why-antarctica-sea-ice-level-growing-while-arctic-glaciers-melts-climate-change-global-warming

You need to read Static's question again. He was asking why ANTarctic sea ice is at record lows, which it is. So is arctic sea ice.