Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[ctandc72]

Firstly, an apology.
In my haste to type whilst working, I failed to proof-read my reply. I also failed dismally in conveying my point.
This part:

should’ve read:
You‘ve also tried to drag in a law that doesn’t seem to accurately depict the Earths climate in it‘s entirety.
I would add also that this law doesn’t provide a refutation of the current consensus around climate change, and in fact is incorporated into it.

With all of that said, there’s this:

Which really should’ve included a citation to a paper that uses that exact law to further the case FOR the current understanding.

Here’s the citation for such a paper, published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal.
Given that I’m not an expert in the field, I’ll leave it you to dispute the findings.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fclim$002f32$002f2$002fjcli-d-17-0603.1.xml?t:ac=journals$002fclim$002f32$002f2$002fjcli-d-17-0603.1.xml

If you can find a paper published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal that contradicts this, please share it.
I’d be more than happy to take a look at it. I might learn something along the way.

No apology needed. I've bookmarked that. I've got a list of about 10 more papers / studies I want to dig through. On that note - I think that's the most important thing about the ENTIRE climate discussion that just seems to either get ignored or glossed over.......the climate on our planet is INCREDIBLY complex.

Many physicists and members of other disciplines of science have done a bunch of research on the climate and many of them note how many scientific skills / facets are actually used when seriously studying the climate. So now when I hear someone dismiss someone's research / findings (mainly because it doesn't agree with their stance - but that's another story) because that science "isn't a climatologist" it actually makes me laugh now.

That's what worries me most about this subject. These assessment reports are written by scientists - they take existing research / studies and draft these "reports" which are used by governments and policymakers and then other "reports" are written and eventually bits and pieces of the original subject matter is trumpeted by different media outlets and eventually parroted as "proof".

The actual information people end up getting is really watered down and many times its convoluted or misconstrued on purpose to line up with the preconceptions of whomever is disseminating this information - most times to the general public.

It's like the temperature anomaly chart which was widely pushed by the media as "proof the planet is warming dramatically"..............so most people took that chart as a representative of actual temperatures - not what it actually was, a chart of temperature anomalies. Which is an entirely different animal. Actually that's part of what spurred by interest in this subject.

Sponsored

 

[K4fxd]

I’m not “dismissing” water vapour at all. The simple fact is that the effects of water vapour are very well documented and accounted for.

No serious discussion can leave water out of it. I don"t know the relationship but until someone can model it, I'm going with the relationship of the gasses in the air.

IE Co2 is .04% so contributes no more than 1% of the warming effect.

An actual model, not a computer prediction.

 

[ctandc72]

If you can explain how the fact that the Earth has changed in the past due to entirely natural influences, utterly precludes the possibility that humans can play a role, I’m willing to listen.
On the surface, your argument looks like ”Oceans have always existed, therefore humans couldn’t possibly have any influence on them”

If I somehow came off that I'm positing that humans cannot / have not played a role in helping to change our climate, that wasn't my intention. What I'm saying is that if the changes measured (in the relatively short time we've had actual decent information - for example temperatures across the planet) sometimes don't vary more than the natural changes that occurred before say the Industrial revolution - that's important information to note.

Some people sit firmly on one side of two camps...

"Humans are ruining the planet. They are solely responsible for the changing climate."

These people directly associate "climate change" with humans and don't even realize that natural facets of the climate (which some scientists admit we haven't even come close to understanding fully) have always and continue to have the lion's share of "control" over our climate.

The other camp is:

"Climate change is a hoax."

Of course climate change isn't a hoax. We know without a shadow of a doubt that the climate on our planet has been changing constantly, even before we existed as a species.

The truth is much more complicated and dumbing it down into a "you believe or you don't" issue does NO GOOD for anyone.

That is absolutely correct . Scientists in the field would refer to this as “equilibrium”. I’m not sure how this provides any refutation of the theory.

It's not a refutation of anything. It's just more proof that the climate system on our planet is incredibly complex and even the most advanced scientific minds haven't even come close to understanding the level with which the planet can "regulate" it's own climate based on different factors.

And yet the average global temp over geological time shows that the “balance” you speak of also produced several mass-extinctions.
Would you like to also indicate on a chart, the points in the Earth’s history where human existence was possible? The early Earth certainly couldn’t sustain us. Seems weird for a planet that has a “natural balance”, unless I’m misunderstanding your use of the term.

Well we know that human beings (in some form or fashion) existed before, during and after the last Ice Age. The climate was definitely not conducive to large population growth and sustainability - but humans existed and survived.

You only have to look at isolated regions of say the Amazon or the polar regions of our planet. People have survived for generations in conditions that are definitely not kind or even moderate for humans to thrive.

In fact only once in the geological past, the Permian period - something like 300 million years ago, were atmospheric CO2 levels as low as they are today. We know plant and animal live flourished at times where CO2 levels were 5 or 10 times higher than they are today. But of course those were different plants and animals.

That's part of the fascination, for me and apparently many other scientists, is how different species have adapted (and some died out) based on the changing climate conditions on our planet. Of course modern life, including humans, have evolved to be well-suited to a low level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Wasn't it only like 200,000 years ago that humans (that were comparable to us as far as anatomy) appeared on the scene?

You won’t see the word “important” used to describe water vapour in the scientific literature. They might use “potent”, but potency is a measure of possibility, rather than a descriptor for actual function.
Also, can you be more specific in your usage of “intercept” when discussing the idea of gases/vapours trapping a specific range of radiation wavelengths.

I can see your point about important vs potent - but again we're looking at how scientists express things versus how most people express / interpret things. That makes a difference. It's well and good that we can have this discussion - but how many people across the world would put even half the effort into researching the stuff we're talking about here? Years of research and data is squeezed and morphed into a tweet someone reads "The planet is warming - we're all going to die." and away we go.

I use the word "intercept" after reading several books and studies where some scientists have recognized that using the word "trap" is actually cause for people literally believing all the heat on our planet is getting trapped inside our atmosphere. It might seem silly to you - but there are people who likely truly believe that....and like it or not, people on this level are capable of being put into positions of authority to make decisions based on this level of knowledge (ignorance).

You‘re on the right track, but somehow made it a bit more messy than it needed to be.
Albedo refers SPECIFICALLY to the AMOUNT of light that is reflected, which doesn’t tell us a great deal about the wavelength. The spectral variations of albedo dictate the wavelengths of the reflected light and how they interact with the GHG’s.
Even with that analysis I’ve grossly oversimplified the process.

That's my point - it's VERY complicated and it's only SMALL facet of our planet's climate and how it operates - with or without human intervention.

I'd wager the vast majority of the people on this planet have ZERO clue what albedo is, much less what it does and what we know about how it effect us and our climate.

Link to source please.
Percentages don’t really tell us anything in this context, but I’m keen to see what your source has to say on the matter regardless.

I'll have to find the source research - it's from a book I'm reading right now.

This one I find particularly interesting. Right now, theres a denier reading your response and nodding his head in agreement with the 1% figure. On the other hand, that same denier was probably telling us how we can’t make accurate predictions.
I see a certain level of inconsistency.
I also reject the notion that you could even attempt to boil a non-linear trend (That you yourself asserted earlier) into a percentage. It just doesn’t make any sense.

I agree that could be misconstrued - but you have to admit it works the other direction as well. You use the term "denier" - I don't think that term helps ANYONE. It makes this entire discussion some kind of personal attack and it NEVER leads to any form of constructive conversation or interaction. It makes it an "us vs them" thing - and that NEVER works well - see politics.

AS far as accurate predictions - that's a WHOLE OTHER discussion. There is A LOT of disagreement about climate modeling. I didn't know until I started researching this subject in depth, that when using the HUGE amounts of data to create climate models (to predict future climate changes to what degree that's even possible) that many of the models were run using data / measurements science has agreed upon (from the past) and the results did not even come close to matching up with what they know to be true. So they "Tune" these models. And the way they tune these models is a really touchy subject.

 

[ctandc72]

@Burkey

Here's the paper that took me down the rabbit hole of climate modeling

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/98/3/bams-d-15-00135.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display

This quote led me to that paper

"Choices and compromises made during the tuning exercise may significantly affect model results..In theory, tuning should be taken into account in any evaluation, intercomparison or interpretation of the model results...Why such a lack of transparency? This may be because tuning is often seen as an unavoidable but dirty part of climate modeling, more engineering than science, an act of tinkering that does not merit recording in the scientific literature. There may also be some concern that explaining that models are tuned may strengthen the arguments of those claiming to question the validity of climate change projections. Tuning may be seen indeed as an unspeakable way to compensate for model errors. "

 

[CJJon]

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.


Writing Team
Coordinating Lead Authors

• Donald J. Wuebbles
  National Science Foundation and U.S. Global Change Research Program – University of Illinois
• David W. Fahey
  NOAA Earth System Research Lab
• Kathy A. Hibbard
  NASA Headquarters

Lead Authors

• Jeff R. Arnold
  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Benjamin DeAngelo
  NOAA Climate Program Office
• Sarah Doherty
  University of Washington
• David R. Easterling
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• James Edmonds
  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Timothy Hall
  NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• Katharine Hayhoe
  Texas Tech University
• Forrest M. Hoffman
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Radley Horton
  Columbia University
• Deborah Huntzinger
  Northern Arizona University
• Libby Jewett
  NOAA Ocean Acidification Program
• Thomas Knutson
  NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab
• Robert E. Kopp
  Rutgers University
• James P. Kossin
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Kenneth E. Kunkel
  North Carolina State University
• Allegra N. LeGrande
  NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• L. Ruby Leung
  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Wieslaw Maslowski
  Naval Postgraduate School
• Carl Mears
  Remote Sensing Systems
• Judith Perlwitz
  NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
• Anastasia Romanou
  Columbia University
• Benjamin M. Sanderson
  National Center for Atmospheric Research
• William V. Sweet
  NOAA National Ocean Service
• Patrick C. Taylor
  NASA Langley Research Center
• Robert J. Trapp
  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Russell S. Vose
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Duane E. Waliser
  NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
• Michael F. Wehner
  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
• Tristram O. West
  DOE Office of Science

Review Editors

• Linda O. Mearns
  National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Ross J. Salawitch
  University of Maryland
• Christopher P. Weaver
  USEPA

Contributing Authors

• Richard Alley
  Pennsylvania State University
• C. Taylor Armstrong
  NOAA Ocean Acidification Program
• John Bruno
  University of North Carolina
• Shallin Busch
  NOAA Ocean Acidification Program
• Sarah Champion
  North Carolina State University
• Imke Durre
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Dwight Gledhill
  NOAA Ocean Acidification Program
• Justin Goldstein
  U.S. Global Change Research Program - ICF
• Boyin Huang
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Hari Krishnan
  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
• Lisa Levin
  University of California – San Diego
• Frank Muller-Karger
  University of South Florida
• Alan Rhoades
  University of California – Davis
• Laura Stevens
  North Carolina State University
• Liqiang Sun
  North Carolina State University
• Eugene Takle
  Iowa State
• Paul Ullrich
  University of California – Davis
• Eugene Wahl
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• John Walsh
  University of Alaska – Fairbanks

Volume Editors

• David J. Dokken
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – ICF
• David W. Fahey
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Kathy A. Hibbard
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Thomas K. Maycock
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Brooke C. Stewart
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Donald J. Wuebbles
  National Science Foundation and U.S. Global Change Research Program – University of Illinois

Science Steering Committee

• Benjamin DeAngelo
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• David W. Fahey
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Kathy A. Hibbard
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Wayne Higgins
  Department of Commerce
• Jack Kaye
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Dorothy Koch
  Department of Energy
• Russell S. Vose
  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Donald J. Wuebbles
  National Science Foundation and U.S. Global Change Research Program – University of Illinois

Subcommittee on Global Change Research

• Ann Bartuska
  Chair, Department of Agriculture
• Virginia Burkett
  Co-Chair, Department of the Interior
• Gerald Geernaert
  Vice-Chair, Department of Energy
• Michael Kuperberg
  Executive Director, U.S. Global Change Research Program
• John Balbus
  Department of Health and Human Services
• Bill Breed
  U.S. Agency for International Development
• Pierre Comizzoli
  Smithsonian Institution
• Wayne Higgins
  Department of Commerce
• Scott Harper
  Department of Defense (Acting)
• William Hohenstein
  Department of Agriculture
• Jack Kaye
  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Dorothy Koch
  Department of Energy
• Andrew Miller
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• David Reidmiller
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
• Trigg Talley
  Department of State
• Michael Van Woert
  National Science Foundation
• Liason to the Executive Office of the President
  Kimberly Miller
  Office of Management and Budget

Report Production Team

• Bradley Akamine
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – ICF
• Jim Biard
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Andrew Buddenberg
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Sarah Champion
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• David J. Dokken
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – ICF
• Amrutha Elamparuthy
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – Straughan Environmental, Inc.
• Tyler Felgenhauer
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Jennifer Fulford
  TeleSolv Consulting
• Jessicca Griffin
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Katharine M. Johnson
  Earth Resources Technology, Inc.
• Angel Li
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Liz Love-Brotak
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Thomas K. Maycock
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Deborah Misch
  TeleSolv Consulting
• Katie Reeves
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – ICF
• Deborah Riddle
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Reid Sherman
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – Straughan Environmental, Inc.
• Mara Sprain
  LAC Group
• Laura Stevens
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Brooke C. Stewart
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Liqiang Sun
  Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites – North Carolina
• Kathryn Tipton
  U.S. Global Change Research Program – ICF
• Sara W. Veasey
  NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
• Anne M. Waple
  Studio30k

 

[sk47]

AS far as accurate predictions - that's a WHOLE OTHER discussion. There is A LOT of disagreement about climate modeling. I didn't know until I started researching this subject in depth, that when using the HUGE amounts of data to create climate models (to predict future climate changes to what degree that's even possible) that many of the models were run using data / measurements science has agreed upon (from the past) and the results did not even come close to matching up with what they know to be true. So they "Tune" these models. And the way they tune these models is a really touchy subject.

Hello; Many posts ago I referenced two PBS programs I had watched. These programs were broadcast on a Wednesday evening back to back. I recorded them and watched them later.

It is also of interest that someone else posted links to these same two PBS programs a bit later in this thread. They posted it as part of the "evidence" to support the side of the argument they favor that humans are the cause of climate change. I have pointed this out before and have made the comments I will repeat again in this post. My comments on this are among those not replied about which appears to be a common strategy. When they cannot refute a comment, it becomes invisible to them or not a suitable source of information.
Well, in this case the two programs are cited in support of their point of view and not my own so will be some harder for them to dismiss.

I do get why they cited these programs. Both are heavy supporters of the global warming/climate change is the fault of humans agenda. As I mentioned earlier the programs are strong in pushing that side of the issue. However in less strident bits of one of the films there is a quiet segment about cow methane leading to the suggestion we ought to stop eating red meat to help the climate. There were some other implied changes to our lifestyles. I have been since calling them part of the "do without" changes to the way we will have to live in order to help stop climate change. These sorts of personal sacrifices which will be a part of the plan are not given much play right now.

Back to the "tuning of the climate models". I also posted a link to a current article myself back many pages ago. I pointed out how the author stated some changes predicted in the models are being observed currently, but are 50 years ahead of the timeline predicted by the models. I guess someone will go back in and tune the models over this discrepancy.
Point being these models are in a way the strongest part of the "evidence"/ argument for the future disaster being given. That because of these models we have to drastically change our lifestyles at an accelerated pace. No ICE by 2030. No use of fossil fuels by some near date.

The other bit that does not get a reply is the question of when these lifestyle "sacrifices" we are expected to make will start to make a difference. Near as I can tell the soonest we can expect some changes if our combined sacrifices could be 100% stopping of CO2 today, would be maybe in 50 years. More likely in 100 years. I have put this out on this thread a few times already. Am I wrong in that the "good" outcomes will not start for many decades at best.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Many posts ago I referenced two PBS programs I had watched. These programs were broadcast on a Wednesday evening back to back. I recorded them and watched them later.

It is also of interest that someone else posted links to these same two PBS programs a bit later in this thread. They posted it as part of the "evidence" to support the side of the argument they favor that humans are the cause of climate change. I have pointed this out before and have made the comments I will repeat again in this post. My comments on this are among those not replied about which appears to be a common strategy. When they cannot refute a comment, it becomes invisible to them or not a suitable source of information.
Well, in this case the two programs are cited in support of their point of view and not my own so will be some harder for them to dismiss.

I do get why they cited these programs. Both are heavy supporters of the global warming/climate change is the fault of humans agenda. As I mentioned earlier the programs are strong in pushing that side of the issue. However in less strident bits of one of the films there is a quiet segment about cow methane leading to the suggestion we ought to stop eating red meat to help the climate. There were some other implied changes to our lifestyles. I have been since calling them part of the "do without" changes to the way we will have to live in order to help stop climate change. These sorts of personal sacrifices which will be a part of the plan are not given much play right now.

Back to the "tuning of the climate models". I also posted a link to a current article myself back many pages ago. I pointed out how the author stated some changes predicted in the models are being observed currently, but are 50 years ahead of the timeline predicted by the models. I guess someone will go back in and tune the models over this discrepancy.
Point being these models are in a way the strongest part of the "evidence"/ argument for the future disaster being given. That because of these models we have to drastically change our lifestyles at an accelerated pace. No ICE by 2030. No use of fossil fuels by some near date.

The other bit that does not get a reply is the question of when these lifestyle "sacrifices" we are expected to make will start to make a difference. Near as I can tell the soonest we can expect some changes if our combined sacrifices could be 100% stopping of CO2 today, would be maybe in 50 years. More likely in 100 years. I have put this out on this thread a few times already. Am I wrong in that the "good" outcomes will not start for many decades at best.

There has to be a start of something, why not now? Why kick the can down an infinite road? Yes, attempts to reverse the trend will take many years to see real benefit. (Which is a blink in geological time.) Yes, there will be "sacrifices". However, there will be benefits too. New tech, jobs, etc., etc. Oh, and people won't starve to death as much.

I am far, far from a climate change zealot. I am just not putting my head in the sand about what is going on either. There is overwhelming scientific agreement on the matter. The nay-sayers are small a fringe group at best.

 

[CJJon]

I should brush up on my Mandarin and start hitting up the Chinese Mustrang forums. They pollute more than all the other developed countries combined!

China’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceeded the Developed World for the First Time in 2019


https://rhg.com/research/chinas-emissions-surpass-developed-countries/

 

[sk47]

There has to be a start of something, why not now? Why kick the can down an infinite road? Yes, attempts to reverse the trend will take many years to see real benefit. (Which is a blink in geological time.) Yes, there will be "sacrifices". However, there will be benefits too. New tech, jobs, etc., etc. Oh, and people won't starve to death as much.

I am far, far from a climate change zealot. I am just not putting my head in the sand about what is going on either. There is overwhelming scientific agreement on the matter. The nay-sayers are small a fringe group at best.

Hello; Well it is fair to say I will not see any of the benefits as I am 73 years old. A lady I know recently had her first child. So that child will get to sacrifice for maybe 50 years and will then start to see the benefits in terms of climate change then, maybe. If the benefit take 100 years then few currently living will ever see any benefits at all. I have stated I am up for sacrifice at a personal level and cite my decision to be childless to help with overpopulation as an example. That my personal sacrifice did not work out at all in term of population does not mean "climate" sacrifice today will not pay off in 50 to 100 years. So, at my age for sure and for most anyone over, say 25 years old the sacrifices of today will not reward them at all. They can do it for their children I guess.
Well it is a big ask of us to sacrifice for people not yet born, but I did it once already. I had almost no hope about slowing down human population growth back in 1972 or so, but did it anyway. I figured I would not be bringing children into a mess at the very least. This has been the only reward. The children I did not have are not competing for resources and adding to environmental problems. I can live with my decision and have.

We are finally getting to the meat of the issue. We are being asked to make drastic changes to our lifestyles on speculation these changes will make a difference at some vaguely defined future point, if ever. I add the if ever because like ZPG and stopping human population increase, it will depend on everyone getting on board. That did not happen for population. I get the "There has to be a start of something, why not now?" idea. After all I did so as mentioned.

Human existence is less than a blink of cosmic time, but 73 years is real critical to me so far.

Ok lets see if this thread can focus on the "benefits" side of giving up fossil fuels. I do hope it is not like the way stopping the Keystone pipeline has worked out so far. Or maybe the way the coal miners have been treated. Are they all going to learn how to program or some such.
I do get the idea, that a transition to new sorts of vehicles and energy production ought to open up replacement jobs. I live in coal mine country and have heard that sort of promise before. I will be willing to listen.

Let me throw one more thing into the mix. In the news today was something about saving 30% of the environment from people for future generations. No details yet, but sounds like a scheme I knew of years ago.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Did a bit of reading. The 30-30 order is to have the federal government take over 30% of the land and 30% of the oceans to help with climate change. That it mentions climate change is why it is being mentioned. I do not know if I will be restricted from using these protected. I do like to fish in lakes but not in the ocean. Is this a part of the sacrifices we will be expected to make for the climate?

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Well it is fair to say I will not see any of the benefits as I am 73 years old. A lady I know recently had her first child. So that child will get to sacrifice for maybe 50 years and will then start to see the benefits in terms of climate change then, maybe. If the benefit take 100 years then few currently living will ever see any benefits at all. I have stated I am up for sacrifice at a personal level and cite my decision to be childless to help with overpopulation as an example. That my personal sacrifice did not work out at all in term of population does not mean "climate" sacrifice today will not pay off in 50 to 100 years. So, at my age for sure and for most anyone over, say 25 years old the sacrifices of today will not reward them at all. They can do it for their children I guess.
Well it is a big ask of us to sacrifice for people not yet born, but I did it once already. I had almost no hope about slowing down human population growth back in 1972 or so, but did it anyway. I figured I would not be bringing children into a mess at the very least. This has been the only reward. The children I did not have are not competing for resources and adding to environmental problems. I can live with my decision and have.

We are finally getting to the meat of the issue. We are being asked to make drastic changes to our lifestyles on speculation these changes will make a difference at some vaguely defined future point, if ever. I add the if ever because like ZPG and stopping human population increase, it will depend on everyone getting on board. That did not happen for population. I get the "There has to be a start of something, why not now?" idea. After all I did so as mentioned.

Human existence is less than a blink of cosmic time, but 73 years is real critical to me so far.

Ok lets see if this thread can focus on the "benefits" side of giving up fossil fuels. I do hope it is not like the way stopping the Keystone pipeline has worked out so far. Or maybe the way the coal miners have been treated. Are they all going to learn how to program or some such.
I do get the idea, that a transition to new sorts of vehicles and energy production ought to open up replacement jobs. I live in coal mine country and have heard that sort of promise before. I will be willing to listen.

Let me throw one more thing into the mix. In the news today was something about saving 30% of the environment from people for future generations. No details yet, but sounds like a scheme I knew of years ago.

This reads very selfishly. It is undeniable that humans have changed things on a global scale. I don't think it is too much to ask that technology come up with better, cleaner ways of doing things. Some look at it as progress.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; Did a bit of reading. The 30-30 order is to have the federal government take over 30% of the land and 30% of the oceans to help with climate change. That it mentions climate change is why it is being mentioned. I do not know if I will be restricted from using these protected. I do like to fish in lakes but not in the ocean. Is this a part of the sacrifices we will be expected to make for the climate?

The govt already owns 28 percent of the land. So they want to pick up 2 percent more? How dare they!!!!

 

[CJJon]

You really are weird (or in the 3d grade).

Crazy Horse indeed!

 

[sk47]

Hello; Not only had I read about the population growing exponentially, I had taken many courses as an undergraduate in biology. As I began teaching in the science in schools I had reason to keep up. I had plans to go into pure science (ecology) and started graduate work to that end. Things did not work out and I wound going on as a science/biology teacher. I taught units on the environment so kept up with the "current" science in part for that reason.

I do understand how some individuals can seem to be a waste of good air, but such was not my thinking in terms of making a decision to be childless. There were a number of folks on college campuses who had similar ideas. The hockey stick population curve was around back then somewhere along the line. There was sufficient reason to believe not enough people would adopt ZPG ( zero population growth) back then. Not the sort of "proof" or "evidence" a person could swear by, but after some years it seemed clear population growth was not going to slow down.
That the population has almost doubled in the 50 years since then was expected. I had a pretty good idea my being childless would not make a difference in the big picture, so will not pretend I was foolish and made a mistake. I do not think it was a mistake in some regards. I do not lie awake at night worried about children or grandchildren I do not have.

I will say I was off on the time scale by a couple of decades. I figured we would be at our current point 20 some years ago. I had figured some issues would be at or near tipping points. For what it is worth "global warming" is not one I considered to be of much great importance. Still do not for that matter. There are some other looming and current environmental issues much higher on my list of things to be concerned about.

I did not try to recruit others into becoming childless. I did try to convince folks to limit children to two per couple (ZPG). Those who thought like I did lost that particular battle.

 

[sk47]

This reads very selfishly. It is undeniable that humans have changed things on a global scale. I don't think it is too much to ask that technology come up with better, cleaner ways of doing things. Some look at it as progress.

Hello; OK let us stack up what we as an individual are doing to help the situation. I have given examples a few times of how I already try for a small footprint. Lets set aside what has been perhaps my single biggest contribution, that is being childless.

I have reduced my electric bill by at least two thirds compared to the folks who lived in this house before. My monthly water bill is often around 800 gallons including keeping aquariums.
I have a 2001 car with 135,000 miles and a 2004 truck with 64,000 miles, so I am not burning up a lot of fossil fuels.
I push mow my yard which may or may not save fuel, but the environmental cost of manufacture is less for a push mower over a rider.
I collect tap water in a bucket while I wait for it to warm up when I take a shower.
I ride a bicycle to pay four of my bills instead of driving when conditions permit.

So that I question the upfront cost to stop warming by maybe half a degree fifty years from now. I do get that there could be a bigger savings in temp rise if everyone around the world started the protocols tomorrow, but do not think all will get onboard.

So yes I do want some clear details on the sacrifice I will be expected to make. Will I be expected to change my diet? Will I pay more for electricity and have less to use? Will I be restricted from government land and ocean so it will be protected from me? I would like a lot more information on just what sort of lifestyle I will have in my remaining time.
On top of that I want to know what exactly future people will be getting if I go along. Save the polar bears? Stop the glaciers from melting? Oh wait, since the warming will continue for at least 50 years no matter what we do according to the models, can the glaciers or polar bears actually be saved?

I await being put into my place and having to eat crow after you show how much smaller your personal environmental footprint is than mine.

Sponsored