Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

Like I said in post #575 the breakdown is as follows.

human contribution to the yearly CO2 flux = 4%
human contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere = 32%
human contribution to the increase in CO2 since the pre-industrial era = 100%

The way you use that 4% figure is off by more than an order of magnitude because you are confusing yearly flux which has units of ppm/yr with total quantity which has units of just ppm.

 

See post #575.

 

Actually it is strongly linked primarily with 3 physical interactions.

1. Solar Radiation
2. Greenhouse Gases
   1. natural sources
   2. anthroprogenic sources
3. Aerosols
   1. natural sources
   2. anthroprogenic sources

The net effect of just these 3 things explains over 90% of the climate change both past AND present. Note that modern climate science includes all elements 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, and 3.2 and that's why modern science can explain both the past AND the present with satisfactory skill.

Contrast this with denier theories that specifically and intentionally ignore 2.2 and 3.2. These "natural-only" theories do pretty good in explaining the past because the anthroprogenic element was essentially zero. But, no surprise, they do quite poorly at explaining the present.

It's also rather ridiculous on simple first principal reasoning. By ignoring 2.2 and 3.2 you are assuming that there is something magical about GHG and aerosol molecules emitted by man vs by nature. But, the laws of physics don't really care who emits them. Thermodynamics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics all work the same way. So it doesn't even make sense to pretend like natural sources are any different than anthroprogenic sources.

 

I don't think we should ignore it, but we shouldn't waste money on solutions that are not going to make any difference, which is what we are doing now and are being urged to do more of. We really don't know what the climate is going to do. Instead of trying to prevent something that may never happen we should adapt to whatever changes do happen.

 

You are right. Its 4% of emissions not 4% of the total amount in the atmosphere. My mistake.
Now I am trying to find out what percentage of the 400PPM in the atmosphere is human caused. So far I can't find a figure on that.

 

What are we doing now that you feel is a waste of money? I read one report published by climatologists that predicted by the end of this century temperatures in the Middle East will reach into the 160s F. If that happens, no one currently living there will be able to remain there and survive. That would trigger the largest human migrations in history. Do you think coping with those migrations will be easier or cheaper than trying to anticipate and alleviate the problem now?

 

You're right, I did make that mistake. I'll have to slow down and read more carefully.

 

At this point, with all the scientific data that validates, confirms, and corroborates the common sensical notion that spewing millions and millions of tonnes of industrial greenhouse gases into the earth's atmosphere affects the earth's atmosphere, the indigenous ideological tribe in denial is the equivalent of primitive, isolated jungle denizens that still refuse to accept that Elvis is dead because they're so rapturous over his rendition of Jailhouse Rock.

Intrepid anthropologists could have a field day.

 

Unfortunately the data does not suggest that this rise is in anyway significant or harmful.
Fractions of a degree. Tiny fractions of a degree.

So who gives a ****?

OMG there is a ripple on my cup of tea, I must build Noahs Ark immediately.
Where is my life jacket.

So really all this is a total piss take.
Some blokes who want to prove how much smarter they are than everyone else and want everyone else to cowtow to them.

A non issue used by idiots as a medium to political power.

Well, if it continues at the rate it did on the last 100 years, temperatures will rise by 0.4 degrees.
Which should cause the same amount of mass migration as a the sun going behind a cloud for a second does.


Do you really think the world will end if we ignore you?
Really?
Really,,,,,, really, really?

It won't.
Jog on oh mighty profits of doom.

 

A dermatological difference of 1 degree can reflect a change of temperature of 5 to 10 degrees or more, for short term weather in any given year. I can personally verify that where I now live temperatures have risen by at least 5 degrees on average during hottest part of summer compared to a decade ago. During July it now averages 103-108 degrees F. It didn't used to get above 100 almost ever. That kinda over rules your 0.4 degree sample.

 

0.4 degrees is the amount the globe has warmed in the last 100 years according to the science used to model global temps.
I had assumed that was Centigrade not Farenheit, but I don't know.

Since where you live has experienced global warming at 100 times the rate that the rest of the planet has, how many of you have mass migrated?

Answer: None.

So that is the answer to your question.
No one is going to mass migrate because of Global Warming by the end of the next century.

 

For at least the last 20 years there has been an incredible amount of money spent on various ways to reduce CO2 emissions. This is a waste. The rest of the world is building coal plants. Lots of them. For all the money spent CO2 emissions continue to clime. Now we are being told we need to send huge sums of money to the third word to prevent climate change. That will be a waste as well.

I don't pay much attention to doomsday predictions. They have always been around and have always been wrong.

 

I agree with you on doomsday predictions, but I'm also aware that it's only been in the past couple of centuries that mankind has become capable of affecting the entire planet thru his own actions. Just look at human population compared to other animals for an easy example. We have become a source of global change & we must become both aware of that fact and sensitive to our own impact on the Earth as a planet and all living things that we share it with.

 

So you want to dazzle us with numbers, but they're numbers that say nothing. 100ppm/yr? That's like "my car averaged 42mph/yr." LOL!!!! Meaningless gibberish. And that one point destroys your entire post because you repeat that gibberish and base the post on it.

 

Climate change denial strongly linked to liberals politicizing the weather

 

The data is in, climate change due to interference by humans exists however that same data and I'm talking about NASAs detailed multi sourced and peer vetted analysis shows that even though we are effecting climate change? Not so in in measurable way at this time. IE every time there is a massive hurricane humans had zero to do with it. At this time. So yep its fear mongering

 

Can you prove that? Or is it your personal guess?

 

How & where so?

 

I agree with that.

 

That's the amount of natural CO2 emissions and absorptions converted from a mass to a concentration per unit time. Is there something that I can clarify for you?

That's not gibberish. That is an acceleration. If you maintained that acceleration and started from 0 mph you would be going 42 mph after 1 year. This is equivalent to about 1/10,000,000th of a G of acceleration. So yeah, that's a really low rate of acceleration, but it's definitely not gibberish.

What are you thinking is gibberish? Be specific. If there's something you don't understand then maybe I can help.

 

I think there's some confusion here. NASA has independently confirmed the general scientific consensus that of the 1.0C of warming since 1950 humans are responsible for nearly 100% of that. This rate of warming has an RMS error of 0.1C so the real rate is confined to a narrow range of 0.9-1.1C. That is absolutely measurable. Even Berkeley Earth which is founded and funded by skeptics/deniers has confirmed this warming rate and also concluded that humans are likely responsible for most if not all of it.

 

That's probably a good idea because most of them are not supported by the scientific consensus. In fact, if you read the IPCC AR5 report you'll find no doomsday predictions in it.

Its important to note that most of these doomsday predictions are taken from individuals that are broadly shunned by the scientific community or in many case they are actually manufactured by deniers themselves so that they can be used as strawman arguments.

 

drluggit is correct. Natural emissions are about 770 gigatons/yr while humans emissions are 30 gigatons/yr. That comes out to 3.9%.

 

The warming is measurable and in some areas observable, but the claim that it is almost 100% caused by humans is a guess based on nothing more than the fact that they don't know what else to blame it on, and they are not going to admit they don't know. Admitting you don't know is not good for one's career, especially not in climate science. If you want to ride the climate change gravy train you'd better stick to the AGW orthodoxy.

 

That's an interesting claim. Do you have any examples of this?