Are you still putting your head in the sand and denying that humans are influencing the global climate? Are events such as increased drought (which has led to things like the recent CA wildfires), hurricanes of increased frequency and intensity, melting of glaciers at astonishing rates, and huge chunks of Antarctic ice breaking off still failing to sway you that the Earth itself is presenting us with warning signs?

A dozen federal agencies released the climate science report. In it, hundreds of scientists from dozens of federal agencies and academic institutions present evidence of human caused climate changes and all the consequences that come with it. It also concludes that there is no alternative explanation supported by the evidence. The research is over 600 pages, and has been peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences. This has nothing to do with democrat vs republican, and this report has even been approved by the white house, who have been some of the strongest climate change deniers. It is very easy to look over and provides some very good info. I encourage those interested to look over it before responding with the same canned denial responses. I an going to review this report with students in my science class, and talk to them about evidence vs. emotion.

Report:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

I just don't understand how anyone can believe with the amount of aircraft burning fuel in the air on a daily basis that we aren't affecting the atmosphere.

Approximately 5,000 to 7,000 aircraft in the air just over the United States at any given time.

That is one thing that has increased many times over since our existence.

Then you factor in manufacturing, automobiles, and general pollution.

(11-05-2017, 11:04 AM)BengalsRocker Wrote: I just don't understand how anyone can believe with the amount of aircraft burning fuel in the air on a daily basis that we aren't affecting the atmosphere.

Approximately 5,000 to 7,000 aircraft in the air just over the United States at any given time.

That is one thing that has increased many times over since our existence.

Then you factor in manufacturing, automobiles, and general pollution.

If that were true, wouldn't the atmosphere have some kind of hole in it or something?  Oh, wait...

(11-05-2017, 11:16 AM)jfkbengals Wrote: If that were true, wouldn't the atmosphere have some kind of hole in it or something?  Oh, wait...

You mean like a valve, that opens and closes to self regulate?

..

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-03/hole-in-the-ozone-layer-smallest-since-1988

Quote:Warmer than usual weather conditions have caused the hole in the ozone layer to shrink to its smallest size since 1988. Satellite images show the hole in the Ozone, which acts as Earth's protective layer, extended to its peak size on Sept. 11 and has been shrinking ever since, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The hole's peak size was about twice that of the United States — 7.6 million square miles. Additional measurements from NOAA also found the least amount of ozone depletion above Antarctica during the hole's peak size since 1988.

(11-05-2017, 11:34 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You mean like a valve, that opens and closes to self regulate?

Na.  More like a big hole caused by consumption of the molecules composing the protective shell.  But I guess that if we were to discontinue use or flat out ban the biggest culprits that cause the depletion, it would allow hole to get smaller as more of the protective molecules are produced.

(11-05-2017, 11:43 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-11-03/hole-in-the-ozone-layer-smallest-since-1988

Keep reading...

Quote:The hole's overall reduction can also be traced to global efforts since the mid-1980s to reduce and eventually ban the emission of ozone-depleting chemicals, according to the Post.

The ozone hole is due to CFC's used in things like aerosols, air conditioning and refrigeration. After science identified the culprit, there was a strong movement to change how we used them. CFC's are rarely used nowadays, we have found other ways to achieve the same goals. That is the reason the hole in the ozone layer is the smallest its been in a very long time. The Earth can repair itself if we change our ways and let it. Humans listened to the evidence there and are seeing results (even though the ozone hole and climate change are 2 separate issues. Why can't we listen to the evidence and find ways to reduce climate change also?

(11-05-2017, 06:15 PM)Beaker Wrote: The ozone hole is due to CFC's used in things like aerosols, air conditioning and refrigeration. After science identified the culprit, there was a strong movement to change how we used them. CFC's are rarely used nowadays, we have found other ways to achieve the same goals. That is the reason the hole in the ozone layer is the smallest its been in a very long time. The Earth can repair itself if we change our ways and let it. Humans listened to the evidence there and are seeing results (even though the ozone hole and climate change are 2 separate issues. Why can't we listen to the evidence and find ways to reduce climate change also?

The struggle is real for me to avoid turning this into a political conversation. On the non-political part of this, I think one big insight into the troubles we have with this issue in the US is that scientific literacy in this country is not at a high rate. This is beyond the whole push for students to get into STEM fields, this is just the ability for the average layperson to have basic scientific understanding. This is a trait that well below half of our nation has, and when they is the case it results in a citizenry that will be very hesitant to accept things like this.

And I'm sure you're aware of this, but it's just something to help further this conversation and avoid the political/policy conversations surrounding it.

Here's the problem, will every single person up to every single government do what is needed to do what is right and save ourselves from ourselves?

Will China and India and Russia help?

What about other countries that are just becoming industrialized and are starting to make some money, will they stop?

What about the ecomony and the effect going green will have on that? I personally don't think it will effect it all that much since we discover and innovate but it will hurt some.

Just toning it down isn't going to stop it either. The world has to go green and sorry to say, China isn't going to do their part. I have heard that China pollutes up to four times the amount that the United States does but think its only double myself which is still a lot.

We as individuals can do our part though. Even if you don't think we are part of the problem, we can still live cleaner and the result is saving ourselves a little money. Plus it can't hurt the environment either even if it's just a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

(11-05-2017, 10:02 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We as individuals can do our part though. Even if you don't think we are part of the problem, we can still live cleaner and the result is saving ourselves a little money. Plus it can't hurt the environment either even if it's just a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

This is my big thing. Reducing our carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of waste we produce, will have a positive impact environmentally and have a positive impact in the long term on our wallets, as well. I'm not saying everyone should have to dive into the deep end right away, but little things make a big difference. People would be amazed how easy it is to avoid disposable bags, cups, etc.

Cleaner oceans, cleaner skies, cleaner land. Whether or not it does impact climate change we ought to be taking steps from the individual level on up to make it happen. Let our powers combine. Go Planet!

(11-06-2017, 11:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is my big thing. Reducing our carbon footprint, and reducing the amount of waste we produce, will have a positive impact environmentally and have a positive impact in the long term on our wallets, as well. I'm not saying everyone should have to dive into the deep end right away, but little things make a big difference. People would be amazed how easy it is to avoid disposable bags, cups, etc.

Cleaner oceans, cleaner skies, cleaner land. Whether or not it does impact climate change we ought to be taking steps from the individual level on up to make it happen. Let our powers combine. Go Planet!

And even if you cant avoid disposable cups etc... many things you get from restruants (even fast food) can be recycled.   many containers for frozen food as well.. You need to clean them off first which is why they probly go to the trash as people are lazy.  That's really the thing to all of it is people being lazy doing things the fast easy cheap way instead of the right way...

(11-06-2017, 02:45 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: And even if you cant avoid disposable cups etc... many things you get from restruants (even fast food) can be recycled.   many containers for frozen food as well.. You need to clean them off first which is why they probly go to the trash as people are lazy.  That's really the thing to all of it is people being lazy doing things the fast easy cheap way instead of the right way...

Oh, yeah, definitely. We have a Dunkin' Donuts in the building I work in, and I admit that I grab something there every now and then. I take my own cup to avoid the Styrofoam, but the bags I can't avoid. But they are recyclable, and so that is where they go. Most people don't realize how much could be recycled that isn't. Does your Chinese take-out place use those plastic containers? Wash 'em out and recycle those things! That cup of yogurt you had? Same deal. The sad thing to me is when I learned just how small the percentage of plastic drink bottles recycled is. I was shocked. It's so easy! Most places will take them unrinsed and label on these days, even. I think that is why I often advocate for reusable rather than recyclable single-use.

This was my breakfast one morning:


I was having a laugh about it because it is a lot of product placement for one particular brand, but I have been doing this type of thing for years to reduce single-use.

CO2 from man in the atmosphere has had a tiny amount of increase in global temperatures....but the theory that it is a catalyst for catastrophic global warming is dubious at best, and arguably been debunked by a nearly 20 year "pause" (which is generous spin on not really understanding what is happening, but for some reason people continue to accept their predictions as "settled science").

Increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes has NOT been shown as being attributable to global warming (a rare admission). The IPCC and many top scientists have said this, but it doesn't stop the fake news media from claiming it. Increased drought is also dubious. Antartica ice shelf is also in contention, with a recent paper on some of the instability/melting on the western shelf possibly attributable to underlying volcanic activity. If anything in the OP refllects an actual consensus of scientists, it would be the OPPOSITE of the claims made.

You guys should really trying reading some of the research from skeptics (a.k.a "deniers") highlighted in places like WattsUpWithThat (which the mainstream media completely ignores), and also from Roy Spencer, whom has been attacked and vilified but is a leading researcher - an authority - on ATTRIBUTION of global warming causes. He also is or was the lead maintainer of the global satellite temperature record (which is interesting in itself, because it doesn't exactly confirm the ground temperature "records" which are constantly being adjusted, usually lower).

Steve Koonin, former Energy Dept. Undersecretary of Science in the Obama Administration, also has some interesting views. Here's his take on the recent report cited in the OP:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882

No one really denies man has likely had a small impact on warming (one that could actually be beneficial). But more than a few out there disagree with the global warming alarmism as based-off bad science driven by agendas.

(11-09-2017, 09:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: CO2 from man in the atmosphere has had a tiny amount of increase in global temperatures....but the theory that it is a catalyst for catastrophic global warming is dubious at best, and arguably been debunked by a nearly 20 year "pause" (which is generous spin on not really understanding what is happening, but for some reason people continue to accept their predictions as "settled science").

Increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes has NOT been shown as being attributable to global warming (a rare admission).  The IPCC and many top scientists have said this, but it doesn't stop the fake news media from claiming it.  Increased drought is also dubious.  Antartica ice shelf is also in contention, with a recent paper on some of the instability/melting on the western shelf possibly attributable to underlying volcanic activity.  If anything in the OP refllects an actual consensus of scientists, it would be the OPPOSITE of the claims made.

You guys should really trying reading some of the research from skeptics (a.k.a "deniers") highlighted in places like WattsUpWithThat (which the mainstream media completely ignores), and also from Roy Spencer, whom has been attacked and vilified but is a leading researcher - an authority - on ATTRIBUTION of global warming causes.  He also is or was the lead maintainer of the global satellite temperature record (which is interesting in itself, because it doesn't exactly confirm the ground temperature "records" which are constantly being adjusted, usually lower).  

Steve Koonin, former Energy Dept. Undersecretary of Science in the Obama Administration, also has some interesting views.  Here's his take on the recent report cited in the OP:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882

No one really denies man has likely had a small impact on warming (one that could actually be beneficial).  But more than a few out there disagree with the global warming alarmism as based-off bad science driven by agendas.

First, there is no such thing as "settled science". The nature of science itself requires constant re-examining and re-questioning of current knowledge. When deniers claim there is no consensus, that's true throughout all branches of science. There are very few cases in science where there is a consensus on anything. But when 97% of scientists agree that the evidence for man affecting global climate is strong, then that's about as close to settled as you can get in science. Even "settled" scientific areas like gravity are consistently re-examined. The actual detection of gravitational waves a couple of years ago is re-writing our knowledge of a scientific fact that has been "settled" for hundreds of years.

Secondly, there will always be (and should be) scientists like Mr.  Koonin presenting alternative possibilities to be examined. But that doesn't mean the current evidence is false or wrong. For example, the possibility of a mantle plume under Antarctica only accounts for some of the ice melt on that continent. There are, and have been volcanoes on Antarctica. But those only account for ice melt over part of that continent. What it doesn't account for is any of the ice melt (or the longer summers) in the arctic. Nor does it account for the rapidly retreating glaciers across the rest of the planet.

The correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature is well established. Common sense and logic tell us that with the amount of fossil fuels that are being consumed globally by humans have to be adding C)2 to our atmosphere in levels that have never previously been seen on such a consistent basis. Climate change may not be solely attributable to human actions....but we certainly have to be playing a part in exacerbating any climate change that may be occurring naturally.

(11-05-2017, 10:02 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Here's the problem, will every single person up to every single government do what is needed to do what is right and save ourselves from ourselves?

Will China and India and Russia help?

What about other countries that are just becoming industrialized and are starting to make some money, will they stop?

What about the ecomony and the effect going green will have on that? I personally don't think it will effect it all that much since we discover and innovate but it will hurt some.

Just toning it down isn't going to stop it either. The world has to go green and sorry to say, China isn't going to do their part. I have heard that China pollutes up to four times the amount that the United States does but think its only double myself which is still a lot.

We as individuals can do our part though. Even if you don't think we are part of the problem, we can still live cleaner and the result is saving ourselves a little money. Plus it can't hurt the environment either even if it's just a drop in the Pacific Ocean.

No, because ONE government backed out and will not try...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/11/07/u-s-now-only-country-not-part-paris-climate-agreement-after-syria-signs/839909001/

Fortunately, there are businesses and localities who are sidestepping the poor leadership and participating on their own

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paris-agreement-trump-us-cities-still-in-defiance-coalition-a8047086.html

(11-11-2017, 12:06 PM)Beaker Wrote: But when 97% of scientists agree 

LMFAO....we're done here

Here's my take and it's a self-serving one.

Last February after my mother passed, I decided to move back to Ohio to be close to my sisters in Cincinnati and in Logan County. I ended up in Dayton, which is exactly half way between them.

Part of my decision was that with climate change the winters here may not be as bad in the past. Even though there have been some cold days, that's been mostly true so far. Although ask me again at the end of March.

(11-26-2017, 10:29 AM)WiregrassBenGal Wrote: Part of my decision was that with climate change the winters here may not be as bad in the past. Even though there have been some cold days, that's been mostly true so far. Although ask me again at the end of March.

Granted, it's only anecdotal perception....but a lot of the "1 degree" increase in temperatures seems to be more on higher lows.  It's different everywhere, but more moderate cold temperatures doesn't seem bad at all.

The insanity of a 1 degree increase over 50+ years being catastrophic is just mind-blowing to me.

(11-27-2017, 02:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Granted, it's only anecdotal perception....but a lot of the "1 degree" increase in temperatures seems to be more on higher lows.  It's different everywhere, but more moderate cold temperatures doesn't seem bad at all.

The insanity of a 1 degree increase over 50+ years being catastrophic is just mind-blowing to me.

I think the big issue here is that the increases are non-linear, meaning that it is an issue that will compound increasingly. And one degree is huge for certain ecosystems, specifically oceanic ones.