When can we blame climate change? The tricky science of attribution

[kwilco]

Basically I blame movies like "Day after Tomorrow".

Silly movies like this have lead much of the public to believe that climate change should be dramatic and instantly demonstrable....whereas the truth is it is far more u sidious and of course it has started 

Attribution is really a red herring that is used by deniers as failure to attribute directly seems to them to justify denial when in fact it just shows a gross misunderstanding of what MMCC really entails.

[Longwood50]

An ice age is a period of time where global temperatures drop so significantly that glaciers advance and encompass over one third of Earth’s surface both laterally and longitudinally. During an ice age, a glacial is the period of time where glacial advancement occurs.^[1] Similarly, an interglacial or interglacial period is the warmer period of time between ice ages where glaciers retreat and sea levels rise.^[2] Over the last 450,000 years, glacials have lasted anywhere from 70,000 to 90,000 years whereas interglacials last approximately 10,000 years.<sup>[3

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods</sup>

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

An ice age is a period of time where global temperatures drop so significantly that glaciers advance and encompass over one third of Earth’s surface both laterally and longitudinally. During an ice age, a glacial is the period of time where glacial advancement occurs.^[1] Similarly, an interglacial or interglacial period is the warmer period of time between ice ages where glaciers retreat and sea levels rise.^[2] Over the last 450,000 years, glacials have lasted anywhere from 70,000 to 90,000 years whereas interglacials last approximately 10,000 years.<sup>[3

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods</sup>

From the same article:

"Presently, we are experiencing an abnormally long interglacial called the Holocene that has lasted nearly 11,000 years. A new glaciation has been expected to begin; however, due to human induced climate change or anthropogenic climate change, the next glaciation is being delayed anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, it is expected that the Holocene interglacial may last at least another 150,000 years.^[6]"

^{https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods}

[kwilco]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:20 AM, BritManToo said:

How are you so sure that climate change is undesirable, or even possible to change?

That is a very good question....of it was 1923 ....the science of this has been explained ad finitum.... yet like a flat earther people chose to ignore it.

[Lacessit]

On 3/26/2023 at 3:20 PM, BritManToo said:

How are you so sure that climate change is undesirable, or even possible to change?

My opinion is that climate change is just something that happens and we should learn to live with. Seems pointless to destroy our civilisation while control of India, China and Africa is out of our hands.

 

But as you're a believer, do you mind telling us how you have changed your life to follow your beliefs? I'm 80% solar and I don't even care, so you'd think those that do care would be making some pretty extreme personal sacrifices ..........

It is certainly undesirable for anyone who owns property in a low-lying coastal region. Check out how insurance companies are hiking their premiums in response to that, or in areas of Australia vulnerable to bushfires.

Climate change is not a matter of belief. It is evidence-based science governed by the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which no-one has ever succeeded in disproving.

I was one of the first people in Australia to put solar panels on the roof of my house, so I put my money where my mouth is. Nowadays, the fossil-fuelled power companies are faced with gold-plated assets and a shrinking market. The technologies are there to convert renewable energy into transportable fuel, retarded by lobby groups and venal politicians. Market forces will win out eventually.

 

Science does not care what you believe.

[save the frogs]

On 3/29/2023 at 11:57 AM, KayDeeDee said:

And Nothing is ever said about China or India !! 

I lived in China.

The air is unbreathable.

I was getting sick.

Climate deniers are stupid.

They're always arguing that "climate change" is a hoax for money.

What about filthy unbreathable air? Is that a hoax too?

We need clean air !!

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2023 at 4:55 PM, kwilco said:

How do you expalin tht - ae you saying it is caused by those facotors or those are the power bases refusing to act on it?

If it didn't make certain people megabucks IMO it wouldn't be an issue at all.

BTW, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas but they can't make money from stopping that so it's not even discussed.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it didn't make certain people megabucks IMO it wouldn't be an issue at all.

BTW, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas but they can't make money from stopping that so it's not even discussed.

Instead of IMO you should be using IMUO namely "In My Uninformed Opinion" Repeatedly you've been challenged about your water vapor nonsense. What don't you understand about the fact that when water vapor reaches a saturation point, it purges itself from the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. Get back to us on this when the atmosphere starts precipitating CO2, i.e. dry ice.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it didn't make certain people megabucks IMO it wouldn't be an issue at all.

BTW, water vapour is a major greenhouse gas but they can't make money from stopping that so it's not even discussed.

QED!

[kwilco]

People need to get up to speed on climate change - doubters are so out of date it is unbelievable. The scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are contributing significantly to this phenomenon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has concluded that it is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The consequences of climate change are numerous and include rising temperatures, sea level rise, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation patterns, among others. These impacts pose significant risks to human societies and natural ecosystems, with the potential for severe economic, social, and environmental consequences.

While it may be challenging to reverse the effects of climate change entirely, taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and adopting sustainable land-use practices, can help to mitigate the severity of the problem.

[still kicking]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:37 AM, save the frogs said:

I lived in China.

The air is unbreathable.

I was getting sick.

Climate deniers are stupid.

They're always arguing that "climate change" is a hoax for money.

What about filthy unbreathable air? Is that a hoax too?

We need clean air !!

 

Ask anybody who lives in Chiang Mai

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:37 AM, save the frogs said:

I lived in China.

The air is unbreathable.

I was getting sick.

Climate deniers are stupid.

They're always arguing that "climate change" is a hoax for money.

What about filthy unbreathable air? Is that a hoax too?

We need clean air !!

 

Climate change and air pollution are not the same thing. Climate is created by nature and pollution is created by humans.

 

Stop the polluters, absolutely.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

People need to get up to speed on climate change - doubters are so out of date it is unbelievable. The scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, are contributing significantly to this phenomenon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has concluded that it is extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The consequences of climate change are numerous and include rising temperatures, sea level rise, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation patterns, among others. These impacts pose significant risks to human societies and natural ecosystems, with the potential for severe economic, social, and environmental consequences.

While it may be challenging to reverse the effects of climate change entirely, taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as transitioning to renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and adopting sustainable land-use practices, can help to mitigate the severity of the problem.

Question:

 

What do you think will make a difference, that is affordable, effective and acceptable.

 

Just saying a load of stuff about "transitioning" and "adopting" is meaningless unless we know what is actually involved.

 

Question:

 

What hope is there for any effective change when it's lauded as a "good thing" that people are flying in great numbers again and companies like Air India are expanding their fleet of aircraft to keep up with demand?

 

Question:

 

What does "challenging" mean in reality? Should we all ride bicycles made mainly of wood, or walk to work?

 

Question:

 

Why is there never any mention of reducing population, when increased population is IMO the greatest driver of pollution on the planet?

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:38 PM, kwilco said:

It's the science - compared to that, your opinion is worthless - it isn't even an opinion, it is a demonstration of how little you understand about the topic.

If you can't present an argument that people like him or me will accept, IMO you already lost your battle.

Just repeating over and over the same thing isn't going to convince enough of the 8 billion people on the planet to change anything.

 

BTW using alarmist language about such as "rising sea levels" only makes people distrust everything that is being promoted when it's obvious to anyone lived by the sea most of their life that the sea level is almost the same as it was 60 years ago, unless it's claimed that sea level rises more in some parts of the oceans.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:28 AM, kwilco said:

That is a very good question....of it was 1923 ....the science of this has been explained ad finitum.... yet like a flat earther people chose to ignore it.

Insulting people isn't a good way to advance your cause.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/5/2023 at 10:06 AM, Lacessit said:

Science does not care what you believe.

and a lot of people don't care what science says unless it's backed up with evidence that we can see.

Just saying that we are all doomed in 5 or 10 or 20 years is not worth worrying about if it means we have to give up overseas holidays or take a bus to work.

[kwilco]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Insulting people isn't a good way to advance your cause.

Depends who they are - if they are too dim to even understand what an argument is then insult and ridicule are the only course worth taking....

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:26 PM, BritManToo said:

No overwhelming majority of scientists.

Just some paid globalist shills forwarding their controlling government agenda.

 

But still, I must be ranked among the top alarmists activists as I've got solar power.

An I on't use air-con, just fans.

How about you Ozzy? what have you done for your cause?

Turned your air-con off?, stopped driving a car? stopped using grid power?

Moved house to be above the rising sea level?

 

Your leaders buy beachfront property, drive hummers, fly around the world.

You (and your leaders actions) hardly give us deniers much reason to believe.

Agree. I wonder how many of the man made climate change posters drive a car made of steel ( used coal to make ), fly in an aeroplane, live in a house that is made of concrete, rather than natural materials, watch tv or use a computer with electricity made from fossil fuel.

The real question is how much are they willing to give up to "save the planet"?

BTW, they won't be saving the planet, as the planet will be just fine without any humans destroying it.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Depends who they are - if they are too dim to even understand what an argument is then insult and ridicule are the only course worth taking....

So you don't care if people ignore your message then? Even people that may agree with you may not be impressed by insulting posters.

 

Have you even considered that your message just isn't convincing if you don't give us actual details of what you want us to do to change things. Vague language without specifics doesn't convince many.

 

I have given specifics about stopping pollution eg not having more than one child or any, banning personal cars in cities, banning air travel for leisure, but my solutions are apparently not very popular.

Soooo, what are your better solutions?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, still kicking said:

Ask anybody who lives in Chiang Mai

That's man made pollution, not climate.

[BritManToo]

5 hours ago, still kicking said:

Ask anybody who lives in Chiang Mai

I live in Chiang Mai, the unbreathable air is caused by low IQ Thais burning the forests so they can gather mushrooms easily in monsoon, nothing to do with climate.

[KhunLA]

If humans weren't on the planet, as in the past, before our existence, there was still GW & CC as the years progressed.

 

So hard to blame humans, as the same has and will happen, when we weren't here and when we eventually won't be here. in the future.

[kwilco]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:38 AM, KhunLA said:

If humans weren't on the planet, as in the past, before our existence, there was still GW & CC as the years progressed.

 

So hard to blame humans, as the same has and will happen, when we weren't here and when we eventually won't be here. in the future.

There would still be natural climate change and global warming even if humans were not on the planet. The Earth's climate has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling, which are caused by various factors such as volcanic activity, changes in solar radiation, and the natural release of greenhouse gases.

 

HOWEVER, .... it's important to note that the current rate and extent of global warming and climate change is largely attributed to human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, which have led to a significant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is why scientists refer to the current period of global warming as "anthropogenic" or human-caused.

While it is true that the Earth has gone through periods of climate change in the past, the rate of change and its impact on ecosystems and human societies is unprecedented in human history. Therefore, it is important for us to take responsibility for our actions and work towards reducing our carbon footprint and mitigating the effects of climate change.

[kwilco]

On 4/13/2023 at 1:17 AM, BritManToo said:

I live in Chiang Mai, the unbreathable air is caused by low IQ Thais burning the forests so they can gather mushrooms easily in monsoon, nothing to do with climate.

Nice to get the racist perspective on things.

[KhunLA]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Therefore, it is important for us to take responsibility for our actions and work towards reducing our carbon footprint and mitigating the effects of climate change.

Agree 100% and why we all should have solar & driving EVs.

 

But ............... yea, there's that ????

[kwilco]

9 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Agree 100% and why we all should have solar & driving EVs.

 

But ............... yea, there's that ????

you don't seem to have a grasp on the issues - just tying to dichotomise the subject.

 

The truth is that Hydrogen is a longer term solution for transport but transport is only one factor in many to do with MMCC. How about capitalism, industry agricyulture and meat war etc., etc,

[KhunLA]

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

you don't seem to have a grasp on the issues - just tying to dichotomies the subject.

 

The truth is that Hydrogen is a longer term solution for transport but transport is only one factor in many to do with MMCC. How about capitalism, industry agricyulture and meat war etc., etc,

I can only directly control what I have access to. 

 

Hydrogen for transport might be good for trucking industry, but a bit impractical for personal car use, besides not available here.

 

Actually moving toward self sufficiency, except for some, lots of food items.  We do avoid most processed foods.  

 

Fruit & veggy garden is a work in progress, rain water half the year, solar & EV, are about all I can control.

 

Seems others aren't trying at all and simply don't care.   To busy talking about what others should do.

 

People can chose to be part of the solution, or continue to be the problem.

 

Some (most) talk, some (very few) do .... UP2U

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I can only directly control what I have access to. 

 

Hydrogen for transport might be good for trucking industry, but a bit impractical for personal car use, besides not available here.

 

Actually moving toward self sufficiency, except for some, lots of food items.  We do avoid most processed foods.  

 

Fruit & veggy garden is a work in progress, rain water half the year, solar & EV, are about all I can control.

 

Seems others aren't trying at all and simply don't care.   To busy talking about what others should do.

 

People can chose to be part of the solution, or continue to be the problem.

 

Some (most) talk, some (very few) do .... UP2U

Relying on volunteerism is one of the major talking points of the fossil fuel industry. And governments are promoting a kind of volunteerism by offering incentives to switch to renewables. Your argument is no more valid than saying if an enemy attacks your country, then the armed forces should only consist of volunteers. In democratic nations, voters overwhelmingly endorse government actions to promote renewables. You got a problem with that?

[onthedarkside]

Post reported and removed:

 

28. You will not make changes to messages quoted from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. Do not shorten any post in a way that alters the context of the original post. Do not change the formatting of the post you are quoting.