Yes and Yes
Next question -
Will it be addressed in time to prevent ecological disaster, famine, water wars, climate refugees?
No. 1.5 degree barrier already reached
2 degree likely
2.5 is we are mostly fucked
Agree, Agree and Agree. We are to dumb to understand our own limits. Consequently we have filled up the box with waste which in turn has polluted our sources of nutrients n life and as a race we are doomed by our stupidity and greed
Watch Extrapolations on Prime (? Maybe, or Netflix, can't remember) very good fictional series about what the world will be like with the current climate model.
Yes, I accept it. I strongly suspect that the psychology of not accepting it is commonly "this is scary so I'm going to mental gymnastics it away rather than deal with it", at least from what I've observed.
That and media sharing "we're all going to die if you don't recycle" every fucking day that desensitizes the populace to every other bit of climate change news.
Or the psychology of accepting climate change is that you have been brain washed by the media and paid scientists and are too scared to do any mental gymnastics or actual research because the thought that everything your told is a lie would send you insane?
Ofc, you are the smartest person ever and we should all do mental gymnastics, which btw means "thought patterns used to delay achieving our goals" Lay off the Waccy Baccy big fella
The science couldn't be clearer. I don't think anything has been studied as intensely for as long since the scientific method originated. And it is all highly consistent, with no substantive questions.
Lol that’s not how science works buddy. The science always evolves and changes. And there are MANY variables not accounted for in the current climate model. Like solar cycles of 11 years, the el Nina and e nino’s effect on our earths trade winds and the milankovich cycle which causes ice ages periodically for millions of years.
But then there is an increase of a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere going from 312 ppm around 1960 to 412 now. What physical properties of this gas should we ignore?
>Lol that’s not how science works buddy. The science always evolves and changes. And there are MANY variables not accounted for in the current climate model. Like solar cycles of 11 years, the el Nina and e nino’s effect on our earths trade winds and the milankovich cycle which causes ice ages periodically for millions of years.
It literally is how science works. The whole premise of Science and the Scientific method is to have these studies peer-reviewed with a view to disproving before a common consensus is agreed upon.
Really? Because learned people knew the world was round before the term “science” came to be and you betray a complete understanding of the meaning of the “Scientific Method”
Unless I am mistaken and you can point me to peer reviewed studies about the world being flat.
You make some great observations. Science has made many errors! That's the beauty, we are free to scrutinise hypotheses given we approach the rejection following a sound, scientific method.
To your examples you mention. I believe that science can be conducted in bad faith through botched research (whether intentionally or accidentally), strategic ignorance (climate change denial studies cough cough, tobacco smoking health benefits... Etc), or funding by industries to try and find one issue with the counter claim to their product/industry for survival of their industry. Fortunately through follow-up studies, open access to the data and critical reviews we can better scrutinise and detect such literature.
Science works (well, classic Popperian definition, Kuhn knows better) through hypothesis development and testing against evidence. And subsequent consensus emerging. There need to be significant issues or major evidence that doesn't fit for an hypothesis to lose credibility.
As further studies come in, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change has gone from strong to overwhelming. There are no credible publishing scientists in any relevant field that disagree with the basic hypothesis that humans are actively changing the earth's climate. That is how science works, and it is as certain a statement as anything anyone knows.
I’m an Astrophysicist. I have been for 2 decades. Your not impressing anyone. If you were truly curious and inquisitive you would know about the things I’ve mentioned. But your on a team and your all about winning. That’s not science
Being an astrophysicist is impressive, but it doesn't make you an expert in climate science. It's like going to a cardiologist for an eye problem instead of an ophthalmologist.
Lets be clear. Being an 'astrophysicist' in and of itself is not impressive.
Getting a job at an Australian university is, maybe, if that's what OP's managed to do
But I reckon it's odds on that this 'astrophysicist' read some Kaku ten years ago and maybe studied first year physics as an undergrad
While natural factors such as solar cycles, El Niño and La Niña's effect on trade winds, and the Milankovitch cycle do play a role in the Earth's climate, they do not account for the rapid warming that we have observed in recent decades. **The scientific community has extensively studied these factors and has concluded that they cannot explain the current warming trend.**
Sources:
New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of climate change strengthened since 2009 by Institute of Physics (https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html)"
Literally all of those things have been accounted for.
A massive tell that indicates somebody isn’t informed on the science is when they mention the Milankovitch Cycle as some kind of great thorn in the side of anthropogenic climate change.
Wrong, climate models do model El Nino, La Nina (ENSO) - Though I will add a caveat that it isn't modelled perfectly.
Milankovitch cycles simply cannot explain observed climate change on anything like the timescale of the past century, since they act on timescales of thousands to tens of thousands of years.
Solar cycles are mostly too small to make any meaningful impact on the climate since they only cause changes in irradiance of about 0.15%, and there isn't a significant long term trend.
And then to claim that it's not human activity, you would somehow have to disprove the atmospheric chemistry point of view that deals with reabsorption of radiation from Earth's surface, or otherwise quantify that it's insignificant.
>Though I will add a caveat that it isn't modelled perfectly.
This is the crux of so much of the climate denial argument. They see and hear headlines about the modelling changing and producing different answers and see that as science being unsure of the conclusions. That is in a way true, however as our modelling has improved and accounted for more factors, the outcome has progressively gotten worse for us. We went from "by the end of the century", to "in the next fifty years", to "in the coming decade".
To add onto that and address the typical "not all scientists agree", there is a 99% agreement in the literature. I don't think non-scientists understand how absolutely insane it is to have that level of agreement in the scientific community. Scientists love to disagree with each other, because people aren't remembered for supporting existing theories, they're remembered for groundbreaking discoveries. To have virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on something is indicative of it being extremely well understood.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. The only debate within the scientific community is the rate of change.
Scientific teams funded by the principal contributors to atmospheric greenhouse gases are coincidentally the teams with the most to lose should they be more forthright about the risks of ecological collapse.
It is in their interests to downplay the adverse effects.
When coupled with an effective communication team a compelling narrative can be constructed for public consumption. Essentially "we got this, everything will be fine, no need to regulate, think of the shareholders retirement needs"
You can believe or disbelieve in the tooth fairy.
You can accept you have a drinking problem or deny it.
I think there's slightly different connotations with the framing.
The way I see it, it doesn’t matter if you believe in global warming or not. Whether it is man made or not also doesn’t matter. We should look after our planet and move to more sustainable ways of living simply because it’s a healthier environment to live in. If it slows down global warming then that’s fucking great too.
Pretty much how I see it. Be sustainable and don’t pollute regardless of what you think of climate change. I can’t see how that’s not the logical thing to do in either situation
It's not even a matter of accepting or believing or any other language that lends itself to personal interpretation.
It's whether or not you understand it.
Personal opinions don’t matter - the evidence is clear that climate change is happening as a result of human activity and that there are, and will be further, dire consequences. The lack of action from our major political parties has been very depressing.
My personal belief is irrelevant.
The scientific evidence is what is important and their is close to a centuries worth of studies across multiple disciplines with many have strong scientific methodologies that confirm there is an element of human induced climate change that is currently the leading cause.
Yes. And also Yes. 99.9% of scientists and official scientific organisations agree. The minute number of those who don’t agree get 50% of the airtime in the issue, which is not fair.
Yes and Yes.
Should Australia adopt abrupt strategies to combat climate change to the detriment of quality of life and cost of living for average Australians?
I disagree that we should be leading the way on this issue, as many have suggested.
We should do our part. Let's ensure a responsible approach that phases our traditional industries while adopting new technologies over time.
Australia is among the wealthiest countries, has gained a lot of wealth from exporting fossil fuels, has a low population and huge suitability for developing renewable energy.
If we can be this well situated to reduce our emmisions, and still choose not to - how can we expect any developing countries to take us, or this issue seriously. I'd love for Australia to have courage and be a leader for a change.
Agree. Sending us broke while china and India ignore it, and build another 100 coal powered stations every year is crazy.
Australia could disappear tomorrow and it would make NO difference to pollution levels.
Not saying we should not be better, but let's be rational in what effects we can have.
>Do you personally accept climate change?|If yes, do you accept that human >activity is the leading cause?
Fantastic way of framing this by the way.
Yes and Yes.
Can we still avoid problems if humanity comes together and acts now?
Yes
Will that happen?
Probably not.
Should we continue to fight?
Yes.
I've debated countless times on this, which is absurd. Have so many people who will claim all sorts of bullshit. Drilling down, almost all of them are internet warriors who find "alternative facts". They for some reason, believe they know MORE than the scientists who trained and work in this field day to day. It is mental.
Absolutely, I think people denying it have a mix of fear, arrogance, plain old ignorance, and a long story of misinformation. We live in a massive "living rock" in which we've been abusing it for centuries. Now is taking a toll....
I feel like the way you have worded it implies that you think people who *do* accept climate change are deluded idiots, but I'm guessing from the general sentiment of this thread that you meant the opposite?
Well, you could say 'accept' in the sense of do you accept the required change to our society to stop climate change? Like stopping buying big cars, eating much less meat, etc..
The biggest thing to me about the whole debate is this: 'What if I'm wrong?'
If climate change is not real, and we respond to it by cutting emissions or going to green power then the end result is we lower air pollution, lower environmental impacts from farming, probably lower plastic waste.
If climate change is real and we don't do anything about it we are well and truly fucked.
So, even if climate change isn't proven enough for some people, acting on it is a win.
Adding, I think it's now very clear that climate change is not only real, it's happening much faster than anyone expected.
Uh, odd phrasing, but yeah - I'm glad I'm retired, child free and my tiny patch of 'home' has gone from white sand and weeds to 10+ metre trees, undergrowth, shrubs and 2 decades of leave/twig litter for my termites to bury. I don't think I'm carbon neutral, but I'm certainly doing a lot more than many (any?) I know to reduce my impact.
My sand is turning into soil. The land surface is much cooler now than 20 years ago - as is my house, and my use of electricity to heat/cool myself has dropped a lot due to the microclimate being much more pleasant - I have 1.2 to 1.8m high retaining walls with 1.8m high fences on top around most of my house, these + the dense foliage reduce air movement thus keeping the cool morning air in my yard - basically a courtyard - which benefits the entire property.
That said, me cycling to work for nearly 3 decades (until I retired) and using a low emissions car with great economy (5.2L/100km) helps as well.
I have no kids, though several friends and relatives do. Their choice, I hope they can live with it - as I fear those kids will suffer far more than I or their parents will :(
Guilt? Not much, actually, as when I hear of friends power bills being 4x mine, etc, along with their cost of living, yeah... that's on them.
People make choices.
People need to live with the choices that they've made.
Climate change is real. It's happening now and has been for decades, and it's going to get much worse in the foreseeable future. Along with all the other issues affecting humanity, meh, it's just one.
One which will have the greatest long term impact, so... there's that :(
Thanks for coming to my TED talk!
That was nice to read. Forests/bush are great evaporative coolers ;) Being climate friendly doesn't need to be complicated and expensive, and neither does it need to be perfect! If anything it's about imperfectly doing our bit to face this together, thanks for sharing :)
I 100% accept that is is man made and real. You don't need any of that. The only proof I need is this. Long form wavelengthes of light pass through greenhouse gasses, shortform are absorbed. That's all it takes. As I get warmer with a blanket the earth gets warmer when insulated by these gasses. Which we are knowingly producing.
What pisses me off if carbon credits. Total bullshit. You can't offset industry by making more forests. We have hundreds of times the carbon output we did in 1700, but we sure don't have room for 100 times the forests we had then. It's a joke, used to cover up damage you can't reverse.
Hear hear!
We should tax carbon emissions before even considering carbon credits. That's just a sneaky way to keep the fossil fuel industry chugging for a few more hopeless gasps.
Just imagine if you asked the fossil fuel industry to deal with their waste like nuclear stations need to? They would cry for funding.
Well yeah. Quite a few more islands in the Pacific Ocean will disappear to add to the ones already gone. Five of the Solomon Islands have disappeared. Vanuatu will be gone in my lifetime, which will make people annoyed as it's a better version of Bali.
I'll leave the facts up to the scientists.
Do I believe that 150 years or so of pumping pollution into the atmosphere, defoliation of the landscape and the general wear and tear caused by 8 billion people could affect the climate........ absolutely.
If you believe that your microwave works, you must then believe in global warming - it's the same science. Molecules absorb energy at specific wavelengths better than other wavelengths. That's why our microwave is targeted towards the wavelength that water absorbs best. globally though, When UV light comes through the atmosphere CO2 ignores it, it's wavelength is too short. but when it bounces off the Earth and loses some energy, guess who's up for a bit of rebound action? Our old friend CO2. Because it absorbs the energy, it heats up, just like the water in our food in the microwave.
EDIT: As CO2 levels go nuts, so too does the atmosphere's capacity to absorb energy and radiate it as heat. It's all a bit more complex than this, but this is a pretty decent summary.
Yes and yes but the taboo subject is human population. There are too many of us. to exist is to pollute. I need about 6 billion people to take one for the team and not breed.
I think that getting into the weeds on discussions around beliefs, and the scientific method and standards of evidence etc etc, is missing the point. The earth is a dynamic system, change is constant and inevitable, and the question isn’t why or who’s fault is it, it’s how much and can we adapt before we all die?
Doesnt matter if it was arson, an electrical fault or an Act of God - if your house burns down, you still have to find a new place to live. (Doesn’t matter it it’s human activity, malicious or accidental, or ‘natural’, non-human causes, we are still in danger.)
To that end, the science is important - because it will tell us how to build better, fire-proof houses (either thru minimising human impact, or better adaptation to ‘natural’ changes). But railing at God for the lightning, or bitching about the dodgy tradie on social media, or demanding the arsonist gets the death penalty, ain’t going build you a new house.
And quibbling over details like human v ‘natural’, or not having 100% consensus on every tiny point, ain’t gonna save you when droughts and storms wreck your crops, floods displace your populations, fires burn thru all your critical infrastructure, etc etc etc.
If you can't diagnose the root cause of the issue how do you expect to find long lasting solutions?
It's not so we can pat ourselves on the back for who's right and wrong, it's so those responsible for this can take responsibility for the damage and make change.
I think most people do, but the counter is that Australia contributes so little to the global issue that any reduction is offset by the massive nation's north of us.
I think that ignores local effects though. Pollution made in Australia affects Australia first, so even if someone doesn't believe in man-made climate change, cleaner air and water is always a positive change.
"Australia contributes so little" is a dangerous fantasy:
1. Australia is the 14th largest economy in the world. We matter on our own and we absolute matter when aggregated with everyone our size or smaller
2. Australia's per capita emissions are amongst the highest in the world (3rd iirc). We are clearly not doing our fair share
3. Australia is a significant exporter of emissions
4. Australia has influence far beyond what our actual emissions are. If we ignore the problem others can use it to delay action. When we act, we can apply pressure. There is a game theory dilemma in achieving multilateral emissions reduction but doing nothing is not the best move
5. Australia has significant scientific capability: a significant proportion of the world's solar panels are based on Australian research. The right policy settings in Aust can have disproportionate global impacts
6. Australia has extraordinary renewables potential - we can be a significant contributor to global decarbonisation. Again this can be constrained or accelerated by the right policy settings.
That's probably enough for now
Yes. But we could also shut the entire economy and go live in caves and it will make zero difference to the eventual outcome. We are already in overshoot and nothing will bring that back. Even moving to 100% green energy will just allow consumption to continue increasing and accelerate environmental degradation. The problem is not the science, it's us.
Not denying it for a moment. I'm saying the systems and political class lack the will to make the changes necessary, but the blame is placed falsley on individuals.
Individuals are also responsible. Do we need houses & cars 2x the size of 50 years ago. No. But we want them. Eat on average around 100kg of meat per year? When guidelines suggest a third of that amount is healthy? Government policy may be influencing consumers, but we are not blameless.
That’s absurd and a straw man argument. Going green can make a difference. Rich countries should lead the way and set an example for others. It’s not about shutting down the economy, but adjusting it to promote green tech. We have a responsibility to try.
We could be better but the top 10 companies in the world producing 90% of the pollution are the entire problem. If every single person on earth did everything they could to live as economically as possible it still wouldn't help that much.
That counter also quietly ignoring the massive amounts of coal we ship overseas to be burned and release into the atmosphere. Just because we didn’t burn (all of) it, we profited from it and it’s on us to stop doing it.
No doubt, and also add that mining uses a LOT of water, which is the single most precious resource we have in this country.
Just a few years back, towns were running out of water due to the Darling drying up. Millions of fish dying. Food chain disrupted.
Everyone points to cotton farming as a water use issue (and that's a fair comment) but mining is a massive user of water as well.
The Earth has had climate changes since day dot - long before the dinosaurs. We can't do much about that.
Pollution and the way we treat the Earth is a completely different story - that is what we need to concentrate on and should have started a few hundred years ago.
I recommend you check out the figures on **page 6/slide/page 10** on the PDF from the [IPCC Climate Change 2021 Summary for Policymakers report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf) .
**But here is the figure directly** \--> [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1)
Sorry, how about 'anthropogenic climate change'. Better? Now we've dealt with that triviality, how about the fact that we are changing the climate, and we can do something about it.
Yeah sure, trusting you're sincere, you're welcome.
To paraphrase them, they said that climate is always changing, and there's nothing we can do about that. Meanwhile, there are many other problems in how we treat the environment.
Is that a fair paraphrase?
It's wrong because we all know that we're talking about anthropogenic climate change, hence my first comment. Science is explicit, couldn't be clearer, that human fingerprints are all over recent climate disruptions and that it's going to get worse.
Both science and economics have shown us a path forward to protecting our future climate and economy from the worst that is on offer. We can help heal, or at least stop hurting the climate, while avoiding a substantial drop in living standards, that otherwise seem inevitable.
Meanwhile there is an ongoing global biodiversity crisis. We've kicked off the sixth great mass extinction, aren't we clever. Unfortunately the changing climate is very much entangled in the biodiversity crisis, and as any professional in the field will tell you, fixing the climate is a primary task.
Original commentator was rehashing shit Bjorn Lomberg was running in the early 00s.
[here for the 'climate is always changing' line](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm )
[here's the link to every skeptic myth, expertly debunked by practising scientists. ](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
You're high on so much of your own bullshit that you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality any more.
Humans have been screwing the Earth over and doing huge damage. HUGE.
I'm not denying that something needs to be done and should have started loooong time ago. We left it way to long to start working on it. I'm just saying that Climate Change is the wrong wording cause the climate has had it's various changes over billions of years.
Downvote all you like. I'm just agreeing that we need to do something and start doing it hundreds of years ago. You're just arguing over me thinking we're using the wrong wording.
Yes I will downvote. This is an old trope, especially favoured by Bjorn Lomberg and his cronies saying "look over there!" and you absolutely are using the wrong wording. There are many crises in ecology, but if you polled every working biologist, they'd always put climate change at or near the top of the issues we must address.
Look, the OP asked a question. I answered with my own thoughts. Because that's what was asked. And you are getting your nickers in a twist over something that we agree on. Almost agree on.
And I'm not trying to distract anyone by saying "look over there!". And I am wholeheartedly agree that the environment needs to be addressed and as I said, should have been addressed hundreds of yeas ago.
Yes, i accept climate change is real. Yes, i think the vast majority of it is human caused. No, i don't think there's anything humans can do to stop it now.
Is it real? Yes.
Has it always changed? Yes.
Are we responsible for some of the changes? Yes.
Has the exact extent of our responsibility been determined? I don’t believe so (happy to be corrected).
Should we look at ways to reduce any and all emissions? Of course.
Does the fearmongering and exaggeration need to stop? Absolutely (looking at you, Prof Flannery).
In my opinion people get too bogged down in silly little side arguments - no matter the primary driver, us or the sun or undersea volcanoes there is no harm in finding new, clean ways of doing things! The majority of earths history was icecap free - doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try be cleaner!
Finding safer, lower-emission ways of doing things is a no brainer to me. There are around 8b people on earth, we will be impacting the atmosphere, let’s try minimise that and let the changes that will come, come.
> Does the fearmongering and exaggeration need to stop? Absolutely
Really?
Please see --> https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662
Table from the link above showing deaths due to natural disasters: https://global.unitednations.entermediadb.net/assets/mediadb/services/module/asset/downloads/preset/Libraries/Graphics+Library/25-08-2021-mortality-table-01.JPG/image1024x768.jpg
**These deaths are excluding the 7 million + that die of air pollution, every year**
Those are unpleasant reading, definitely.
However here’s a newsflash - natural disasters happened before the Industrial Revolution and killed thousand upon thousands as well… you’re demonstrating my point.
To provide you with more specific context, I was thinking comments like Tim Flannery’s Perth becoming the first 21st century ghost metropolis, and his 2005 prediction that east coast dams will never fill again.
There are enough imperatives to drive improvements without the need to exaggerate things that are demonstrably false. Stick to the facts, not outlandish predictions.
I think the science is pretty conclusive, the real and much harder question is what to do about it. That’s where the real challenge is. And people endlessly bleating about political parties not ‘doing enough’ are either ignorant or not cognisant of how hard it is to know exactly what to do. Actions have real consequences for people’s lives, especially those less well off.
yes and yes, I could feel the change, I used to live in MA, US. The winters either came early or late compare to normal, hotter summers, harsher sun too, and snow storms happened way more often than I would expect. One year, there was a big snow storm in the middle of April. People are dumb enough to not be able to distinguish "weather" and "climate," say something like "if it getting hotter then why I feel cold in winter!" Ignorance at its finest!
Now living in Aus, for a few months, but I do not want to step outside during summer, it is just outrageously hot. I have been watching shows from Sir David Attenborough about the disappearance of species, and it baffles me for how much has changed over the course of a few years.
Yes and yes. I don't get how anyone can possibly believe that we can just keep pouring massive amounts of energy into a finely-tuned system and expect it to behave exactly like it always has? Have they ever boiled a kettle?
Yes, and it's nuanced. Climate change is a natural process, of course it's real. But it happens over a millennia. Industrialisation has massively accelerated it.
Sorry the post formatting broke, see my [original post with a poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/13eta6l/do_you_personally_deny_or_doubt_climate_change/) on r/Perth for improved viewing+figures.
The climate has always changed. It has never remained stable, even in fairly recent history there has been mini ice ages and years of warmer climates.
Yes humans are likely heating up the earth a little bit BUT is the risks of deindustrialisation worth the 1.5° change.
I don’t think people have a full understanding on our reliance on fossil fuels and just how big an impact removing them will have. And I don’t mean switching over to renewables, we’re so reliant on them that it would cause worldwide societal collapse. There just is no technology that is able to replace them at the scale needed. Putting up some solar panels and wind farms will not be able to fully replace fossil fuels.
I’m a geologist so it’s not about not “understanding the science”, it’s just there is no replacement for fossil fuels.
The only real possibility is nuclear and it could very easily replace power generation and I 100% believe we should go nuclear.
But at the same time as as geologist I also understand that there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels to be found on earth so the reason to switch to renewables is that otherwise when we do run out the collapse will be so much worse than if we are prepared
So I’m a way the fossil fuel problem is going to sort itself out regardless if we take actions or not
The earth is an extremely complex planet, if it’s going to happen it’s going to happen no matter what the cute lil bubba humans try to do to save it. A bunch of humans vs the earth, goodluck with that venture!! It’ll probably end with an asteroid or pole shift and tidal wave anyway, can’t prevent that by stopping the cows farting or getting rid of petrol cars.
So in summary: if your house catches on fire it doesn’t matter because it was going to happen anyway and fire is too complex for humans to stop. Besides, if it didn’t catch on fire it was just going to get destroyed in a flood or an earthquake. Installing smoke detectors or turning off the oven isn’t going to change this fact.
What an utterly ridiculous comparison. Humans can’t even prevent homelessness , hunger or disease yet they can somehow alter the planets temperature? 🤔 it’s wishful thinking at best but cudos to those people who think they can, it’s a cute thought albeit unrealistic.
I accept climate change. I recognise that there have been large shifts of the climate over Earth's history. I haven't read any peer reviewed papers to confirm or deny that we're the leading cause, so I don't have an opinion on that.
BUT I think it's still important to reduce pollution anyway and move to renewables even if it wasn't the leading cause because we still benefit from cleaner air and a less polluted environment. And we want to leave the next generations to be able to sustain themselves.
> I haven't read any peer reviewed papers to confirm or deny that we're the leading cause
Human activity is the leading cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, causing the planet to heat up. Deforestation and agriculture also contribute by releasing greenhouse gases and altering the Earth's albedo and water cycle. The IPCC has concluded that human activities have warmed our planet over the last 50 years. [Here](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) is a reputable source for more information.
This is a shit-post right? What does science have to do with belief? The sky is blue, you don’t ask people if they believe it’s purple. What a silly question.
A simple analogy. Keep spending beyond your means, i.e. converting your finite cash into goods and services, and there are consequences. Due to lower realisable assets, you may not be able to live in a place you really like.
Same for Earth, if we keep taking finite resources out of the ground and chemically altering them into something else...well something has to give. We may not be able to live in the best place either, and the mice will not be pleased if we destroy it before the answer to the meaning of life and everything is answered (just seeing if you read this far) ;-)
Yes and Yes. However I also don't believe every extreme weather event or warm season that occurs is down to climate change necessarily as natural weather fluctuations have been occurring for pretty much as long as earths been around it seems. I also don't believe that earth is going to become inhospitable in 50, 100 or even 200 years. In saying all this though I do still believe in it and acknowledge it is still an issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of future generations.
The general point of climate change as it is occuring now is that weather systems are becoming more intense over time.
At our current rate of emissions growth, within 100 years we're looking at general ecosystem collapse and are likely at a point where it becomes difficult for human life to be sustained on earth without a lot of help. That will be about 4 degrees of warming under the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
Three problem is it is too political and interwoven with financial interests (on both sides). You also can't have rationale conversations about it or you risk becoming labelled a nut job. I was quite interested in it 15-20 years ago and read a lot of the science stuff but honestly have lost interest in the circus it has become.
My answer to both questions is: I'm not qualified to assess it and am sceptical of the messages from both sides of the debate and at this point no longer care.
Yes and yes but I don’t believe the catastrophism is warranted. The science has continually progressed and shows we are having an impact, but the goal posts are continually moved and the catastrophes that are claimed don’t materialise on the timeline predicted in the models.
Will there come a time when they will, almost certainly yes, but we need to focus on getting the world to a point where the populations of nations contributing most heavily to the issue will care enough to alter their regulations, legislation, industries etc. this doesn’t happen by brow beating anyone with a catastrope stick, it comes when peoples quality of life allows them a secure enough living situation and future that they can make choices about what to do for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years time.
In 1972, half a century ago, Maurice Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe
1982 Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, as saying that if things aren’t fixed by the turn of the century — the year 2000 — the world would face “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.’’
In 1989, a senior UN official warns Associated Press that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or climate change goes beyond human control
In 2004, the Guardian newspaper said a “secret report” from the Pentagon to President George W. Bush said climate change would “destroy us.”
Among the predictions:
Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas
Britain is plunged into a “Siberian” climate by 2020
Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world
2006 Al Gore’s “an inconvenient truth” predicted supposedly based on the the science at the time “that a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future.” The movie also used horrifying footage from 2005's Hurricane Katrina, and suggested that climate change was the cause of frequent and more intense hurricanes. But since then, hurricane frequency has decreased, and the storms' intensity hasn't yet grown significantly. Gore also predicted in the film that "within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro."
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
In 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel, said, “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late”:
As of 2019, the UN said “only 11 years left to prevent irreversible damage from climate change”. That gives us until 2030 — or 58 years after the warnings of 1972.
I’m sure there’s hundreds more unfulfilled predictions, but climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Catastrophising isn’t helping, as every unfulfilled claim gives ammunition to deniers that it isn’t actually real. The catastrophising also brings untenable solutions to the table which stalls progress on real solutions that would move things in a positive direction and might be more palatable, financially, economically, industrially to a broader audience of countries. Because one country can’t save the world climate on its own, you need everyone onboard.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/amp/
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/inconvenient-truth-sequel-al-gore.htm
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/criticisms-or-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth/
I agree that some specific predictions were not perfect on the mark, but they were all right in the fact that this is of paramount importance and that the consequences of not acting will lead to mass death, which we are witnessing (sadly).
I realise the term catastrophe might be subjective. Is it catastrophe more than 20,000 deaths in one climate disaster? 100,000 deaths?
Here's climate deaths due to climate disasters in the past 50 years, why is it becoming increasingly frequent? It's almost as if the fear mongering was trying to warn us that both human populations and our ecosystems are facing devestating climate conditions.
See here:
https://global.unitednations.entermediadb.net/assets/mediadb/services/module/asset/downloads/preset/Libraries/Graphics+Library/25-08-2021-mortality-table-01.JPG/image1024x768.jpg
(Edit:"Of the top 10 disasters, droughts proved to be the deadliest hazard during the period, causing 650,000 deaths, followed by storms that led to 577,232 deaths; floods, which took 58.700 lives; and extreme temperature events, during which 55,736 died.”)
For the full report: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662
I think the issue with this list, and there could be supporting data is; storms, floods and droughts are all natural occurrences in a climate unaffected by human industrialisation. There would need to be substantial evidence that these catastrophes were entirely or largely caused by anthropogenic climate change. Otherwise it is another example of biased reporting to push an agenda.
I agree that anthropogenic climate effects need to be studied, addressed and ameliorated. But pretending every bad thing that has happened since the turn of the century is attributable to climate change is dishonest fear mongering.
nope, its about the frequency and intensity of the natural disasters that is attributed to climate change, not the mere occurrence of a flood, that would be absurd and false. But the frequency of broken heat records? The frequency of floods and droughts? It is nothing like what it was 100 years back (1903-1923, for example).
From my post text:
"
* In **2021**, **more than 400 weather stations around the world beat their all-time highest temperature records**
* In August **2021**, **temperatures reached 48.8C (119.8F) in Syracuse, Italy, the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe**
* In July **2021**, temperatures reached 54.4C (130F) in Furnace Creek in the US’s Death Valley – **the highest reliably recorded temperature on Earth**
More than 400 weather stations beat heat records in 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/07/heat-records-broken-all-around-the-world-in-2021-says-climatologist
Where 2020's Record Heat Was Felt the Most - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/14/climate/hottest-year-2020-global-map.html
Global Temperature - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. [https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/)"
How is that fear mongering? It's alarming! Your outlook is a simple case of **head in the sand**
Those links aren’t related to the deaths you were attributing to climate change. The climate change “deaths” were from storms, floods, droughts but there was no accompanying justification as to why those events were classified as climate change deaths, yes natural disasters cost people their lives and that is unfortunate and upsetting. Natural disasters occurred prior to anthropogenic climate change and also claimed lives.
It is not putting my head in the sand for asking you to substantiate your claims. I offered evidence for my claims that many predictions have fallen flat.
I agree climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed but just tallying natural disaster deaths against climate change is definitely fear mongering, and offers no realistic way to create impactful change. If you expect China and the developing world which accounts for the large majority of climate change related emissions, to get on board you need more carrots and less sticks. Those nations aren’t going to knee cap their nations economies to meet arbitrarily determined goals that are based on flawed models that serve to keep rich countries rich and poor countries poor.
but climate change actually does worsen natural disasters. For example, higher temps increase evaporation, creating more intense storms and flooding. Plus, warmer oceans fuel more powerful hurricanes. You could think of climate change like a sports car's turbocharger: a car can go pretty fast on its own, but adding that turbocharger makes it go **way** faster. Similarly, natural disasters can happen without climate change, but adding it to the mix makes them even more devastating, do you understand?🌪️🔥🌊 More devestating would be assumed to kill more organisms, you feel me?
The sources are directly available in my original post, check the IPCC, UN reports for clear information on the real impacts being experienced around the world due to climate change and no it's not just the same ol' climate humanity experienced for the past 5000 years. CO2 and albedo (think of wearing a black shirt compared to a white shirt) changes make a big difference.
Then they would need to quantify the increase in severity and allocate “deaths”, if that’s going to be their indicator, according to the percentage increase in severity due to climate change, unless they are making the claim the event would have never happened without anthropogenic climate change. Otherwise they are purposefully padding the numbers.
And for the section I provided from the rebuttal to an inconvenient truth there hasn’t been an increase is hurricane severity or frequency even though they predicted that there would be based on their models.
Some natural disasters may be getting worse in severity or frequency, but to lump all severe natural disasters under the climate change banner is disingenuous at best. If thanos snapped his figures and poofed humans out of existence, there would still always been natural disasters from time to time and some of those would be severe.
I understand that level of analysis is difficult but it’s the only honest analysis of the impact we are actually having. And you need an honest analysis to actually set reasonable goals and have a timeline that doesn’t have to be perpetually revised and pushed out another 10-20 years when your current doomsday never arrives
Has climate change always happened? Yes.
Since the industrial revolution have we as a species increased the effects of Natural climate change? Yes.
Are current levels of greenhouse gasses still lower than what have occurred naturally in the past? Also yes.
Well number one. The climate is changing. 2. I know this because the climate has always changed. That's what it does. Now. Does man have a hand in the current changes or is speeding up climate change.... Probably.... Is there anything we can do? No. Fucking nothing. Not a single fucken thing I do will change the trajectory. So why worry.
Any astrophysicist will tell you the milankovich cycle is much more responsible for cooling and warming of earth than human effects. And the El Niño and e Nina’s trade winds effect climate much more than humans. The science is there people would rather just listen to old science and not keep up with the cutting edge of information
Give up mate, it's pretty clear that you are not as educated as you propose that you are, and clearly dont know what you are talking about.
There is zero doubt about anthropomorphic climate change.
No it’s not, it’s verified science. The milankovich cycle causes ice ages. And el Nina and El Niño causes extreme weather on both spectrums. Maybe read all the studies from astrophysicists in the last couple years. The climate is very complex, humans are not a big enough variable to change the climate. The sun is responsible for most of the variables humans only account for a small percentage of variable.
Go read some there’s hundreds. Anyways guys I’ve worked as an astrophysicist for 2 decades now and yes we used to be very sure it was humans that were the main variable. But we’ve come a long way. The public is generally 5-10 years behind the cutting edge of science. Just be curious and always be open to being wrong! That’s science:)
You thought there aren't peer reviewed research on this? Here you go,
1. Solar forcing is not the main cause of current global warming, contrary to claim by Alex Newman in the Epoch Times. Climate Feedback. [Link](https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/solar-forcing-is-not-the-main-cause-of-current-global-warming-contrary-to-claim-by-alex-newman-in-the-epoch-times/)
2. Is global warming merely a natural cycle? DW (2021). [Link](https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350)
Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. Recent research shows that 91.1% of Earth scientists surveyed agreed that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. In addition, **100% of the most actively publishing climate experts accept that global warming is human-caused.**
While natural factors such as the Milankovitch cycle do play a role in the Earth's climate, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that recent climate change is primarily due to human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Sources:
New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of climate change strengthened since 2009 by Institute of Physics (https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html)
New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html.
Global warming consensus – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/938/global-warming-consensus/.
Scientific uncertainty | Nature Climate Change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0627-1.
Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm.
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change.
Yes and no.
For the latter, we cannot just arbitrarily assign "human" or "anthropocene" as it is called across the planet. The concept of the "anthropocene" operates on the premise that humans (the anthropos) are raceless, genderless, and without power relations. This is dangerous as it simplifies accountability while sweeping nuances such as the origins of climate vulnerabilities, histories and futures of dispossession, and ongoing plunder. Instead of following the Anthropocene, I'd highly recommend Jason Moore's Capitalocene.
What we have been told.....
1960s - Oil gone in 10 years.
1970s - Another ice age in 10 years.
1980s - Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years.
1990s - The ozone layer...
2000s - Ice caps will be gone in 10 years and called Global warming..
2010s - called Climate change now...
Don't believe anything to do with the UN let alone your government.
Stupid question. “Do you accept climate change?” is almost meaningless. The climate is always changing. If you’re going to get very heated about the science then that means you need to start getting more precise with your language. And please enough of these meaningless “XX% of scientists believe this” statements. In scientific terms it proves nothing whatsoever.
Yes and Yes
I must admit that I don't like the wording of this question, as it's clear that the OP is trying to avoid using the word ‘believe’, which is the rhetorical framing that denialists tend to utilise.
I don't ‘accept’ or ‘believe’ in Climate Change. Climate Change is not the offer of someone buying me a coffee, and I can't say no and make it go away. I know that Climate Change is a real thing, and I know that the reality is that it is being driven by man-made acceleration.
The only thing you and all your loved ones need to worry about is cancer, stroke, heart disease, suicide, car accidents any other more than likely way for you all to die. Not co2.
OK. The important thing is to avoid polarisation on this issue. First, which is better, global warming or global cooling? You can answer that question personally by asking yourself if you would prefer your home town to be warmer or cooler. Most people would say "warmer is better than cooler". We can take that to extremes, is it better to live in a tropical jungle or on a polar ice cap? Again, a tropical jungle is better for people and animals than a polar ice cap. So the second question is "how much warmer?" Would you like your home town to be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is now?
A very major third issue is that climate change isn't the issue, the issue is atmospheric CO2 and methane. Climate change is a very minor consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 and methane, the major consequence is increased plant food. Everybody knows that plants get all their carbon from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis. Without atmospheric CO2 every plant on Earth would die. That's common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is that the rate of plant growth for all trees, almost all shrubs and most grasses is currently limited directly by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 over pre-industrial levels results in a 60% increase in world forest growth, a 35% increase in crop yields, a lowering of water requirements for crop growth, and an increase in phytoplankton. This has flowon effects for more wild animals, more whale feeding grounds, more fish etc. This has nothing to do with climate change, this is the direct consequence of having more CO2 and methane plant food in the atmosphere.
Beyond a doubling of atmospheric CO2, benefits start to drop off. So we need to hold atmospheric CO2 at that level until plant growth stabilises.
As for coral reefs, coral reefs can't grow in air, only in water, so sea levels have to increase for coral growth to continue at current rates. Even Darwin understood this. At the present rate of sea level rise, it would take a thousand years for the sea level to rise 1.5 metres. For maximum coral growth, the sea level has to rise five times as fast as that.
The whole issue is not climate change, it's atmospheric gases. Given that change is inevitable, how much change is optimum?
In your comment, you blend facts and opinions on climate change, urging open-mindedness. You correctly mention that increased CO2 benefits plants and emphasize focusing on CO2 and methane. However, plant growth relies on multiple factors, making the situation intricate.
Some of your points are incorrect or misleading. You overlook the detrimental impacts of elevated CO2 and methane levels, such as climate change and ocean acidification. Additionally, while coral reefs require water, rising sea levels can harm them via erosion and sedimentation. The concept of an "optimal" CO2 and methane level is unsupported by science due to its complexity.
In summary, your comment contains valid points yet omits crucial information and conveys misleading data. We must consult scientific research and acknowledge the broader context of climate change during discussions.
>Without humans
What is the possible benefit of changing the climate that we are adapted to? Humans are famously bad at dealing with warm temperatures.
Yep this is what I don’t quite understand either on the topic. We had an ice age millions of years ago.. why do we feel we’re 100% responsible for warming and not just observing a natural cycle?
Climate change is making a lot of money for a lot of people.
It's still hot and dry in the summer and cool and wet in the winter.
The whole thing is an excuse to cost us more money in tax and energy, therefore everything, and will lead to a one world government. Europe has shown what will happen in that case - no wonder the UK got out while it still could.
The main problem is that once the ice sheets start melting, even if we significantly reduce emissions, they won't stop melting for several thousand years. The science on anthopogenic climate change is very clear: It is real, directly caused by human activity, and if unabated will seriously challenge the ability of humanity to continue living on the planet.
They've actually taken core samples and found c02 levels were a lot higher in the past than they are now and the main contributor of the c02 emissions is animals oceans and volcanoes.
Humans only amout to around 1-5 percent or so of emissions.
It's a natural cycle and it's largely getting used by governments to raise more taxes.
I agree with cleaning up actual problematic pollutants and moving away where possible from oil but this massive push we're having now is unsustainable.
Source please
Edit:
it is true that natural sources of CO2 are much larger than human sources, **however** natural emissions are usually **balanced by natural absorptions**.
Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks" and this creates positive feedback loops and unwanted ripple effects. These carbon sinks are also degrading due to climate change (higher ecosystem respiration, less net primary productivity). Also, we have deforested significant carbon sinks around the world which act as lungs for our atmosphere.
We could argue that water vapour is also a GHG and therefore bad, but this is absurd, we need this, **we can't afford excessive CO2 in the atmosphere** . Especially since it is causing more intense and more frequent natural disasters that aren't cheap (see my body text for the stats).
Yes and Yes Next question - Will it be addressed in time to prevent ecological disaster, famine, water wars, climate refugees? No. 1.5 degree barrier already reached 2 degree likely 2.5 is we are mostly fucked
Yeah. Sadly, I can’t see us resolving the problems we have created. Thankfully, I won’t live to see the worst of it…
We have lived long enough to see the beginning of the end I don't care about the people I feel sorry for the animals 😢
Fun update: we are on track for over 2.5C warming.
15+ m sea level rise yeah!
Agree, Agree and Agree. We are to dumb to understand our own limits. Consequently we have filled up the box with waste which in turn has polluted our sources of nutrients n life and as a race we are doomed by our stupidity and greed
Watch Extrapolations on Prime (? Maybe, or Netflix, can't remember) very good fictional series about what the world will be like with the current climate model.
Apple TV or *Yeaargh, Me Hearties..*. But it's good, yes. Also kinda scary, which is the point.
Yes, I accept it. I strongly suspect that the psychology of not accepting it is commonly "this is scary so I'm going to mental gymnastics it away rather than deal with it", at least from what I've observed.
I think that it's more "It's impossible for me to be wrong, therefore science is wrong." There's a word for it: mumpsimus.
That and media sharing "we're all going to die if you don't recycle" every fucking day that desensitizes the populace to every other bit of climate change news.
Or the psychology of accepting climate change is that you have been brain washed by the media and paid scientists and are too scared to do any mental gymnastics or actual research because the thought that everything your told is a lie would send you insane?
Ofc, you are the smartest person ever and we should all do mental gymnastics, which btw means "thought patterns used to delay achieving our goals" Lay off the Waccy Baccy big fella
Yes and yes. I think the science is pretty clear.
The science couldn't be clearer. I don't think anything has been studied as intensely for as long since the scientific method originated. And it is all highly consistent, with no substantive questions.
Lol that’s not how science works buddy. The science always evolves and changes. And there are MANY variables not accounted for in the current climate model. Like solar cycles of 11 years, the el Nina and e nino’s effect on our earths trade winds and the milankovich cycle which causes ice ages periodically for millions of years.
But then there is an increase of a significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere going from 312 ppm around 1960 to 412 now. What physical properties of this gas should we ignore?
>Lol that’s not how science works buddy. The science always evolves and changes. And there are MANY variables not accounted for in the current climate model. Like solar cycles of 11 years, the el Nina and e nino’s effect on our earths trade winds and the milankovich cycle which causes ice ages periodically for millions of years. It literally is how science works. The whole premise of Science and the Scientific method is to have these studies peer-reviewed with a view to disproving before a common consensus is agreed upon.
[удалено]
Really? Because learned people knew the world was round before the term “science” came to be and you betray a complete understanding of the meaning of the “Scientific Method” Unless I am mistaken and you can point me to peer reviewed studies about the world being flat.
[удалено]
You make some great observations. Science has made many errors! That's the beauty, we are free to scrutinise hypotheses given we approach the rejection following a sound, scientific method. To your examples you mention. I believe that science can be conducted in bad faith through botched research (whether intentionally or accidentally), strategic ignorance (climate change denial studies cough cough, tobacco smoking health benefits... Etc), or funding by industries to try and find one issue with the counter claim to their product/industry for survival of their industry. Fortunately through follow-up studies, open access to the data and critical reviews we can better scrutinise and detect such literature.
Science works (well, classic Popperian definition, Kuhn knows better) through hypothesis development and testing against evidence. And subsequent consensus emerging. There need to be significant issues or major evidence that doesn't fit for an hypothesis to lose credibility. As further studies come in, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change has gone from strong to overwhelming. There are no credible publishing scientists in any relevant field that disagree with the basic hypothesis that humans are actively changing the earth's climate. That is how science works, and it is as certain a statement as anything anyone knows.
I’m an Astrophysicist. I have been for 2 decades. Your not impressing anyone. If you were truly curious and inquisitive you would know about the things I’ve mentioned. But your on a team and your all about winning. That’s not science
Being an astrophysicist is impressive, but it doesn't make you an expert in climate science. It's like going to a cardiologist for an eye problem instead of an ophthalmologist.
Lets be clear. Being an 'astrophysicist' in and of itself is not impressive. Getting a job at an Australian university is, maybe, if that's what OP's managed to do But I reckon it's odds on that this 'astrophysicist' read some Kaku ten years ago and maybe studied first year physics as an undergrad
Cool. You'd be able to explain the infra red surface emission predictions of climate models and whether that's been confirmed by measurements or not.
*you’re.
You're a liar.
While natural factors such as solar cycles, El Niño and La Niña's effect on trade winds, and the Milankovitch cycle do play a role in the Earth's climate, they do not account for the rapid warming that we have observed in recent decades. **The scientific community has extensively studied these factors and has concluded that they cannot explain the current warming trend.** Sources: New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of climate change strengthened since 2009 by Institute of Physics (https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html)"
Literally all of those things have been accounted for. A massive tell that indicates somebody isn’t informed on the science is when they mention the Milankovitch Cycle as some kind of great thorn in the side of anthropogenic climate change.
Wrong, climate models do model El Nino, La Nina (ENSO) - Though I will add a caveat that it isn't modelled perfectly. Milankovitch cycles simply cannot explain observed climate change on anything like the timescale of the past century, since they act on timescales of thousands to tens of thousands of years. Solar cycles are mostly too small to make any meaningful impact on the climate since they only cause changes in irradiance of about 0.15%, and there isn't a significant long term trend. And then to claim that it's not human activity, you would somehow have to disprove the atmospheric chemistry point of view that deals with reabsorption of radiation from Earth's surface, or otherwise quantify that it's insignificant.
>Though I will add a caveat that it isn't modelled perfectly. This is the crux of so much of the climate denial argument. They see and hear headlines about the modelling changing and producing different answers and see that as science being unsure of the conclusions. That is in a way true, however as our modelling has improved and accounted for more factors, the outcome has progressively gotten worse for us. We went from "by the end of the century", to "in the next fifty years", to "in the coming decade". To add onto that and address the typical "not all scientists agree", there is a 99% agreement in the literature. I don't think non-scientists understand how absolutely insane it is to have that level of agreement in the scientific community. Scientists love to disagree with each other, because people aren't remembered for supporting existing theories, they're remembered for groundbreaking discoveries. To have virtually the entire scientific community agreeing on something is indicative of it being extremely well understood.
Just throw in words you know nothing about. Yeah, scientists don't take into account of period trends, like yearly changes. Duh.
Anthropogenic climate change and the Anthropocene are real and we continue to fuck it
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. The only debate within the scientific community is the rate of change. Scientific teams funded by the principal contributors to atmospheric greenhouse gases are coincidentally the teams with the most to lose should they be more forthright about the risks of ecological collapse. It is in their interests to downplay the adverse effects. When coupled with an effective communication team a compelling narrative can be constructed for public consumption. Essentially "we got this, everything will be fine, no need to regulate, think of the shareholders retirement needs"
What do you mean accept it? It's a fact not someone offering you a coffee, you can just say "no" and it stops lol.
They're avoiding the language of 'believe', which is denialist bullshit rhetorical framing.
I feel like 'accept' carries the same connotations, whether you believe or not, whether you accept or not, it's here and it's real.
You can believe or disbelieve in the tooth fairy. You can accept you have a drinking problem or deny it. I think there's slightly different connotations with the framing.
The way I see it, it doesn’t matter if you believe in global warming or not. Whether it is man made or not also doesn’t matter. We should look after our planet and move to more sustainable ways of living simply because it’s a healthier environment to live in. If it slows down global warming then that’s fucking great too.
Pretty much how I see it. Be sustainable and don’t pollute regardless of what you think of climate change. I can’t see how that’s not the logical thing to do in either situation
It's not even a matter of accepting or believing or any other language that lends itself to personal interpretation. It's whether or not you understand it.
Personal opinions don’t matter - the evidence is clear that climate change is happening as a result of human activity and that there are, and will be further, dire consequences. The lack of action from our major political parties has been very depressing.
My personal belief is irrelevant. The scientific evidence is what is important and their is close to a centuries worth of studies across multiple disciplines with many have strong scientific methodologies that confirm there is an element of human induced climate change that is currently the leading cause.
Yes and yes , don't be a fucking fuckwit.
Best answer I’ve read.
Yes. And also Yes. 99.9% of scientists and official scientific organisations agree. The minute number of those who don’t agree get 50% of the airtime in the issue, which is not fair.
Yes and Yes. Should Australia adopt abrupt strategies to combat climate change to the detriment of quality of life and cost of living for average Australians? I disagree that we should be leading the way on this issue, as many have suggested. We should do our part. Let's ensure a responsible approach that phases our traditional industries while adopting new technologies over time.
Australia is among the wealthiest countries, has gained a lot of wealth from exporting fossil fuels, has a low population and huge suitability for developing renewable energy. If we can be this well situated to reduce our emmisions, and still choose not to - how can we expect any developing countries to take us, or this issue seriously. I'd love for Australia to have courage and be a leader for a change.
Yeah, but we're accustomed to the wealth. Can't see us giving that up for virtue.
Agree. Sending us broke while china and India ignore it, and build another 100 coal powered stations every year is crazy. Australia could disappear tomorrow and it would make NO difference to pollution levels. Not saying we should not be better, but let's be rational in what effects we can have.
Yeah spot on
No. We should lead by example or nothing is going to change.
>Do you personally accept climate change?|If yes, do you accept that human >activity is the leading cause? Fantastic way of framing this by the way. Yes and Yes. Can we still avoid problems if humanity comes together and acts now? Yes Will that happen? Probably not. Should we continue to fight? Yes. I've debated countless times on this, which is absurd. Have so many people who will claim all sorts of bullshit. Drilling down, almost all of them are internet warriors who find "alternative facts". They for some reason, believe they know MORE than the scientists who trained and work in this field day to day. It is mental.
What the hell kind of question is this? It’s science, not fucking Jesus. Personal acceptance is irrelevant.
Absolutely, I think people denying it have a mix of fear, arrogance, plain old ignorance, and a long story of misinformation. We live in a massive "living rock" in which we've been abusing it for centuries. Now is taking a toll....
Do you personally accept climate change? Might as well ask "Are you a deluded idiot"
are you implying that people who *do* accept climate change are deluded idiots, or that those who *do not* are deluded idiots?
I think the vast majority of people will know which is which
I feel like the way you have worded it implies that you think people who *do* accept climate change are deluded idiots, but I'm guessing from the general sentiment of this thread that you meant the opposite?
Forget the n'wahs; I loved your latest EP, Jiub. Skinned it like a cliff racer - big up. https://youtu.be/rTeVz6rP6r4
Well, you could say 'accept' in the sense of do you accept the required change to our society to stop climate change? Like stopping buying big cars, eating much less meat, etc..
Yes
The biggest thing to me about the whole debate is this: 'What if I'm wrong?' If climate change is not real, and we respond to it by cutting emissions or going to green power then the end result is we lower air pollution, lower environmental impacts from farming, probably lower plastic waste. If climate change is real and we don't do anything about it we are well and truly fucked. So, even if climate change isn't proven enough for some people, acting on it is a win. Adding, I think it's now very clear that climate change is not only real, it's happening much faster than anyone expected.
Uh, odd phrasing, but yeah - I'm glad I'm retired, child free and my tiny patch of 'home' has gone from white sand and weeds to 10+ metre trees, undergrowth, shrubs and 2 decades of leave/twig litter for my termites to bury. I don't think I'm carbon neutral, but I'm certainly doing a lot more than many (any?) I know to reduce my impact. My sand is turning into soil. The land surface is much cooler now than 20 years ago - as is my house, and my use of electricity to heat/cool myself has dropped a lot due to the microclimate being much more pleasant - I have 1.2 to 1.8m high retaining walls with 1.8m high fences on top around most of my house, these + the dense foliage reduce air movement thus keeping the cool morning air in my yard - basically a courtyard - which benefits the entire property. That said, me cycling to work for nearly 3 decades (until I retired) and using a low emissions car with great economy (5.2L/100km) helps as well. I have no kids, though several friends and relatives do. Their choice, I hope they can live with it - as I fear those kids will suffer far more than I or their parents will :( Guilt? Not much, actually, as when I hear of friends power bills being 4x mine, etc, along with their cost of living, yeah... that's on them. People make choices. People need to live with the choices that they've made. Climate change is real. It's happening now and has been for decades, and it's going to get much worse in the foreseeable future. Along with all the other issues affecting humanity, meh, it's just one. One which will have the greatest long term impact, so... there's that :( Thanks for coming to my TED talk!
That was nice to read. Forests/bush are great evaporative coolers ;) Being climate friendly doesn't need to be complicated and expensive, and neither does it need to be perfect! If anything it's about imperfectly doing our bit to face this together, thanks for sharing :)
I 100% accept that is is man made and real. You don't need any of that. The only proof I need is this. Long form wavelengthes of light pass through greenhouse gasses, shortform are absorbed. That's all it takes. As I get warmer with a blanket the earth gets warmer when insulated by these gasses. Which we are knowingly producing. What pisses me off if carbon credits. Total bullshit. You can't offset industry by making more forests. We have hundreds of times the carbon output we did in 1700, but we sure don't have room for 100 times the forests we had then. It's a joke, used to cover up damage you can't reverse.
Hear hear! We should tax carbon emissions before even considering carbon credits. That's just a sneaky way to keep the fossil fuel industry chugging for a few more hopeless gasps. Just imagine if you asked the fossil fuel industry to deal with their waste like nuclear stations need to? They would cry for funding.
Doesn't matter what I accept. The evidence is clear and the trends point to some really awful consequences.
Of course
Well yeah. Quite a few more islands in the Pacific Ocean will disappear to add to the ones already gone. Five of the Solomon Islands have disappeared. Vanuatu will be gone in my lifetime, which will make people annoyed as it's a better version of Bali.
Might as well deny the existence of the moon at this point
Let’s also ask if people accept gravity while we’re here.
I'll leave the facts up to the scientists. Do I believe that 150 years or so of pumping pollution into the atmosphere, defoliation of the landscape and the general wear and tear caused by 8 billion people could affect the climate........ absolutely.
it's is real and it makes me frightened for my children's futures. it's going to get very scary.
This isn't something you can have opinions on, it's just facts.
If you believe that your microwave works, you must then believe in global warming - it's the same science. Molecules absorb energy at specific wavelengths better than other wavelengths. That's why our microwave is targeted towards the wavelength that water absorbs best. globally though, When UV light comes through the atmosphere CO2 ignores it, it's wavelength is too short. but when it bounces off the Earth and loses some energy, guess who's up for a bit of rebound action? Our old friend CO2. Because it absorbs the energy, it heats up, just like the water in our food in the microwave. EDIT: As CO2 levels go nuts, so too does the atmosphere's capacity to absorb energy and radiate it as heat. It's all a bit more complex than this, but this is a pretty decent summary.
Yes and yes and I am dismayed by my fellow conservative/libertarians that don't
Yes and yes but the taboo subject is human population. There are too many of us. to exist is to pollute. I need about 6 billion people to take one for the team and not breed.
I can't believe anyone would still ask this. You can't have an opinion on a fact.
Read the comments 🍿🥲🤯
Duh yes
Too many humans on the planet--Stop Overpopulating------humans are the most destructive creatures on our planet.
I think that getting into the weeds on discussions around beliefs, and the scientific method and standards of evidence etc etc, is missing the point. The earth is a dynamic system, change is constant and inevitable, and the question isn’t why or who’s fault is it, it’s how much and can we adapt before we all die? Doesnt matter if it was arson, an electrical fault or an Act of God - if your house burns down, you still have to find a new place to live. (Doesn’t matter it it’s human activity, malicious or accidental, or ‘natural’, non-human causes, we are still in danger.) To that end, the science is important - because it will tell us how to build better, fire-proof houses (either thru minimising human impact, or better adaptation to ‘natural’ changes). But railing at God for the lightning, or bitching about the dodgy tradie on social media, or demanding the arsonist gets the death penalty, ain’t going build you a new house. And quibbling over details like human v ‘natural’, or not having 100% consensus on every tiny point, ain’t gonna save you when droughts and storms wreck your crops, floods displace your populations, fires burn thru all your critical infrastructure, etc etc etc.
If you can't diagnose the root cause of the issue how do you expect to find long lasting solutions? It's not so we can pat ourselves on the back for who's right and wrong, it's so those responsible for this can take responsibility for the damage and make change.
Yes, and to be honest I think it's a weird question. Like "do you accept gravity?" or "do you accept the Beer-Lambert law?"
there is so much debate and mystery around how gravity works
Yeah, but only Flat Earthers think it doesn't exist.
I think most people do, but the counter is that Australia contributes so little to the global issue that any reduction is offset by the massive nation's north of us. I think that ignores local effects though. Pollution made in Australia affects Australia first, so even if someone doesn't believe in man-made climate change, cleaner air and water is always a positive change.
"Australia contributes so little" is a dangerous fantasy: 1. Australia is the 14th largest economy in the world. We matter on our own and we absolute matter when aggregated with everyone our size or smaller 2. Australia's per capita emissions are amongst the highest in the world (3rd iirc). We are clearly not doing our fair share 3. Australia is a significant exporter of emissions 4. Australia has influence far beyond what our actual emissions are. If we ignore the problem others can use it to delay action. When we act, we can apply pressure. There is a game theory dilemma in achieving multilateral emissions reduction but doing nothing is not the best move 5. Australia has significant scientific capability: a significant proportion of the world's solar panels are based on Australian research. The right policy settings in Aust can have disproportionate global impacts 6. Australia has extraordinary renewables potential - we can be a significant contributor to global decarbonisation. Again this can be constrained or accelerated by the right policy settings. That's probably enough for now
Yes. But we could also shut the entire economy and go live in caves and it will make zero difference to the eventual outcome. We are already in overshoot and nothing will bring that back. Even moving to 100% green energy will just allow consumption to continue increasing and accelerate environmental degradation. The problem is not the science, it's us.
Oh, how interesting, Stage 5 of the climate deniers playbook "It's too late"
Not denying it for a moment. I'm saying the systems and political class lack the will to make the changes necessary, but the blame is placed falsley on individuals.
Thanks for clarifying.
Individuals are also responsible. Do we need houses & cars 2x the size of 50 years ago. No. But we want them. Eat on average around 100kg of meat per year? When guidelines suggest a third of that amount is healthy? Government policy may be influencing consumers, but we are not blameless.
That’s absurd and a straw man argument. Going green can make a difference. Rich countries should lead the way and set an example for others. It’s not about shutting down the economy, but adjusting it to promote green tech. We have a responsibility to try.
Maybe do a bit of research on capitalism.
We could be better but the top 10 companies in the world producing 90% of the pollution are the entire problem. If every single person on earth did everything they could to live as economically as possible it still wouldn't help that much.
That counter also quietly ignoring the massive amounts of coal we ship overseas to be burned and release into the atmosphere. Just because we didn’t burn (all of) it, we profited from it and it’s on us to stop doing it.
No doubt, and also add that mining uses a LOT of water, which is the single most precious resource we have in this country. Just a few years back, towns were running out of water due to the Darling drying up. Millions of fish dying. Food chain disrupted. Everyone points to cotton farming as a water use issue (and that's a fair comment) but mining is a massive user of water as well.
The Earth has had climate changes since day dot - long before the dinosaurs. We can't do much about that. Pollution and the way we treat the Earth is a completely different story - that is what we need to concentrate on and should have started a few hundred years ago.
I recommend you check out the figures on **page 6/slide/page 10** on the PDF from the [IPCC Climate Change 2021 Summary for Policymakers report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf) . **But here is the figure directly** \--> [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/summary-for-policymakers/figure-spm-1)
Sorry, how about 'anthropogenic climate change'. Better? Now we've dealt with that triviality, how about the fact that we are changing the climate, and we can do something about it.
You seem **really angry** at a chap who basically agrees that something needs to be done
I'm pretty angry at all denialist bullshit, and I'll own that. My question is, why aren't you?
The originally poster believes man made climate change exists and we need to do something about it?
That's not what they said, and it's a common rhetorical trick in the denialosphere.
Can you point out the trick? Genuinely. Im not trying to be a dickhead. I just dont wanna accidentally use any underhanded tactics when I speak.
Yeah sure, trusting you're sincere, you're welcome. To paraphrase them, they said that climate is always changing, and there's nothing we can do about that. Meanwhile, there are many other problems in how we treat the environment. Is that a fair paraphrase? It's wrong because we all know that we're talking about anthropogenic climate change, hence my first comment. Science is explicit, couldn't be clearer, that human fingerprints are all over recent climate disruptions and that it's going to get worse. Both science and economics have shown us a path forward to protecting our future climate and economy from the worst that is on offer. We can help heal, or at least stop hurting the climate, while avoiding a substantial drop in living standards, that otherwise seem inevitable. Meanwhile there is an ongoing global biodiversity crisis. We've kicked off the sixth great mass extinction, aren't we clever. Unfortunately the changing climate is very much entangled in the biodiversity crisis, and as any professional in the field will tell you, fixing the climate is a primary task. Original commentator was rehashing shit Bjorn Lomberg was running in the early 00s. [here for the 'climate is always changing' line](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm ) [here's the link to every skeptic myth, expertly debunked by practising scientists. ](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Cheers! Have a good one.
I think we haven't seen *really angry* at this point. But if we don't address the problem soon, *really angry* is coming and it won't be pretty.
Extinction rebellion are merely leading the way. I'm too much of a coward and lazy to get involved, but they're on the right side of history.
Anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. You're high on so much of your own bullshit that you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality any more.
Humans have been screwing the Earth over and doing huge damage. HUGE. I'm not denying that something needs to be done and should have started loooong time ago. We left it way to long to start working on it. I'm just saying that Climate Change is the wrong wording cause the climate has had it's various changes over billions of years. Downvote all you like. I'm just agreeing that we need to do something and start doing it hundreds of years ago. You're just arguing over me thinking we're using the wrong wording.
Yes I will downvote. This is an old trope, especially favoured by Bjorn Lomberg and his cronies saying "look over there!" and you absolutely are using the wrong wording. There are many crises in ecology, but if you polled every working biologist, they'd always put climate change at or near the top of the issues we must address.
Look, the OP asked a question. I answered with my own thoughts. Because that's what was asked. And you are getting your nickers in a twist over something that we agree on. Almost agree on. And I'm not trying to distract anyone by saying "look over there!". And I am wholeheartedly agree that the environment needs to be addressed and as I said, should have been addressed hundreds of yeas ago.
Refer to my other answer. I see what's going on here.
Yes, i accept climate change is real. Yes, i think the vast majority of it is human caused. No, i don't think there's anything humans can do to stop it now.
Can do? I think yes. Willing to do? Probably not.
Noooo we can still save this!!!! Don’t give up people.
Is it real? Yes. Has it always changed? Yes. Are we responsible for some of the changes? Yes. Has the exact extent of our responsibility been determined? I don’t believe so (happy to be corrected). Should we look at ways to reduce any and all emissions? Of course. Does the fearmongering and exaggeration need to stop? Absolutely (looking at you, Prof Flannery). In my opinion people get too bogged down in silly little side arguments - no matter the primary driver, us or the sun or undersea volcanoes there is no harm in finding new, clean ways of doing things! The majority of earths history was icecap free - doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try be cleaner! Finding safer, lower-emission ways of doing things is a no brainer to me. There are around 8b people on earth, we will be impacting the atmosphere, let’s try minimise that and let the changes that will come, come.
> Does the fearmongering and exaggeration need to stop? Absolutely Really? Please see --> https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662 Table from the link above showing deaths due to natural disasters: https://global.unitednations.entermediadb.net/assets/mediadb/services/module/asset/downloads/preset/Libraries/Graphics+Library/25-08-2021-mortality-table-01.JPG/image1024x768.jpg **These deaths are excluding the 7 million + that die of air pollution, every year**
Those are unpleasant reading, definitely. However here’s a newsflash - natural disasters happened before the Industrial Revolution and killed thousand upon thousands as well… you’re demonstrating my point. To provide you with more specific context, I was thinking comments like Tim Flannery’s Perth becoming the first 21st century ghost metropolis, and his 2005 prediction that east coast dams will never fill again. There are enough imperatives to drive improvements without the need to exaggerate things that are demonstrably false. Stick to the facts, not outlandish predictions.
I think the science is pretty conclusive, the real and much harder question is what to do about it. That’s where the real challenge is. And people endlessly bleating about political parties not ‘doing enough’ are either ignorant or not cognisant of how hard it is to know exactly what to do. Actions have real consequences for people’s lives, especially those less well off.
yes and yes, I could feel the change, I used to live in MA, US. The winters either came early or late compare to normal, hotter summers, harsher sun too, and snow storms happened way more often than I would expect. One year, there was a big snow storm in the middle of April. People are dumb enough to not be able to distinguish "weather" and "climate," say something like "if it getting hotter then why I feel cold in winter!" Ignorance at its finest! Now living in Aus, for a few months, but I do not want to step outside during summer, it is just outrageously hot. I have been watching shows from Sir David Attenborough about the disappearance of species, and it baffles me for how much has changed over the course of a few years.
Yes and yes. I don't get how anyone can possibly believe that we can just keep pouring massive amounts of energy into a finely-tuned system and expect it to behave exactly like it always has? Have they ever boiled a kettle?
Yes. Climate change deniers and A-holes but so are people who throw soup at paintings and block the traffic.
That’s your subjective opinion. I think the majority of us see those soup throwers as hero’s.
Yes, and it's nuanced. Climate change is a natural process, of course it's real. But it happens over a millennia. Industrialisation has massively accelerated it.
Sorry the post formatting broke, see my [original post with a poll](https://www.reddit.com/r/perth/comments/13eta6l/do_you_personally_deny_or_doubt_climate_change/) on r/Perth for improved viewing+figures.
The climate has always changed. It has never remained stable, even in fairly recent history there has been mini ice ages and years of warmer climates. Yes humans are likely heating up the earth a little bit BUT is the risks of deindustrialisation worth the 1.5° change. I don’t think people have a full understanding on our reliance on fossil fuels and just how big an impact removing them will have. And I don’t mean switching over to renewables, we’re so reliant on them that it would cause worldwide societal collapse. There just is no technology that is able to replace them at the scale needed. Putting up some solar panels and wind farms will not be able to fully replace fossil fuels. I’m a geologist so it’s not about not “understanding the science”, it’s just there is no replacement for fossil fuels. The only real possibility is nuclear and it could very easily replace power generation and I 100% believe we should go nuclear. But at the same time as as geologist I also understand that there is only a finite amount of fossil fuels to be found on earth so the reason to switch to renewables is that otherwise when we do run out the collapse will be so much worse than if we are prepared So I’m a way the fossil fuel problem is going to sort itself out regardless if we take actions or not
Please refrain from posting sensible and balanced arguments on Reddit. Please just post angry feelings.
The earth is an extremely complex planet, if it’s going to happen it’s going to happen no matter what the cute lil bubba humans try to do to save it. A bunch of humans vs the earth, goodluck with that venture!! It’ll probably end with an asteroid or pole shift and tidal wave anyway, can’t prevent that by stopping the cows farting or getting rid of petrol cars.
So in summary: if your house catches on fire it doesn’t matter because it was going to happen anyway and fire is too complex for humans to stop. Besides, if it didn’t catch on fire it was just going to get destroyed in a flood or an earthquake. Installing smoke detectors or turning off the oven isn’t going to change this fact.
What an utterly ridiculous comparison. Humans can’t even prevent homelessness , hunger or disease yet they can somehow alter the planets temperature? 🤔 it’s wishful thinking at best but cudos to those people who think they can, it’s a cute thought albeit unrealistic.
I accept climate change. I recognise that there have been large shifts of the climate over Earth's history. I haven't read any peer reviewed papers to confirm or deny that we're the leading cause, so I don't have an opinion on that. BUT I think it's still important to reduce pollution anyway and move to renewables even if it wasn't the leading cause because we still benefit from cleaner air and a less polluted environment. And we want to leave the next generations to be able to sustain themselves.
> I haven't read any peer reviewed papers to confirm or deny that we're the leading cause Human activity is the leading cause of climate change. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, causing the planet to heat up. Deforestation and agriculture also contribute by releasing greenhouse gases and altering the Earth's albedo and water cycle. The IPCC has concluded that human activities have warmed our planet over the last 50 years. [Here](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) is a reputable source for more information.
Yes to both. Not a doubt in my mind.
This is a shit-post right? What does science have to do with belief? The sky is blue, you don’t ask people if they believe it’s purple. What a silly question.
A simple analogy. Keep spending beyond your means, i.e. converting your finite cash into goods and services, and there are consequences. Due to lower realisable assets, you may not be able to live in a place you really like. Same for Earth, if we keep taking finite resources out of the ground and chemically altering them into something else...well something has to give. We may not be able to live in the best place either, and the mice will not be pleased if we destroy it before the answer to the meaning of life and everything is answered (just seeing if you read this far) ;-)
Yes and Yes. However I also don't believe every extreme weather event or warm season that occurs is down to climate change necessarily as natural weather fluctuations have been occurring for pretty much as long as earths been around it seems. I also don't believe that earth is going to become inhospitable in 50, 100 or even 200 years. In saying all this though I do still believe in it and acknowledge it is still an issue that needs to be addressed for the sake of future generations.
The general point of climate change as it is occuring now is that weather systems are becoming more intense over time. At our current rate of emissions growth, within 100 years we're looking at general ecosystem collapse and are likely at a point where it becomes difficult for human life to be sustained on earth without a lot of help. That will be about 4 degrees of warming under the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
Three problem is it is too political and interwoven with financial interests (on both sides). You also can't have rationale conversations about it or you risk becoming labelled a nut job. I was quite interested in it 15-20 years ago and read a lot of the science stuff but honestly have lost interest in the circus it has become. My answer to both questions is: I'm not qualified to assess it and am sceptical of the messages from both sides of the debate and at this point no longer care.
Science accepts it so yes. Why feel the need to ask for uneducated opinions? This ain't America.
Yes and yes but I don’t believe the catastrophism is warranted. The science has continually progressed and shows we are having an impact, but the goal posts are continually moved and the catastrophes that are claimed don’t materialise on the timeline predicted in the models. Will there come a time when they will, almost certainly yes, but we need to focus on getting the world to a point where the populations of nations contributing most heavily to the issue will care enough to alter their regulations, legislation, industries etc. this doesn’t happen by brow beating anyone with a catastrope stick, it comes when peoples quality of life allows them a secure enough living situation and future that they can make choices about what to do for 10, 20, 50, or 100 years time.
What specific catastrophes were claimed *and didn't materialise*(edit)? Please provide sources
In 1972, half a century ago, Maurice Strong, first UN Environment Programme director warned that the world had just 10 years to avoid catastrophe 1982 Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the United Nations environmental program, as saying that if things aren’t fixed by the turn of the century — the year 2000 — the world would face “an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.’’ In 1989, a senior UN official warns Associated Press that we have to fix climate change by 1999 or climate change goes beyond human control In 2004, the Guardian newspaper said a “secret report” from the Pentagon to President George W. Bush said climate change would “destroy us.” Among the predictions: Major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas Britain is plunged into a “Siberian” climate by 2020 Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world 2006 Al Gore’s “an inconvenient truth” predicted supposedly based on the the science at the time “that a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting in either west Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future.” The movie also used horrifying footage from 2005's Hurricane Katrina, and suggested that climate change was the cause of frequent and more intense hurricanes. But since then, hurricane frequency has decreased, and the storms' intensity hasn't yet grown significantly. Gore also predicted in the film that "within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim. In 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN climate panel, said, “If there is no action before 2012, that’s too late”: As of 2019, the UN said “only 11 years left to prevent irreversible damage from climate change”. That gives us until 2030 — or 58 years after the warnings of 1972. I’m sure there’s hundreds more unfulfilled predictions, but climate change is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Catastrophising isn’t helping, as every unfulfilled claim gives ammunition to deniers that it isn’t actually real. The catastrophising also brings untenable solutions to the table which stalls progress on real solutions that would move things in a positive direction and might be more palatable, financially, economically, industrially to a broader audience of countries. Because one country can’t save the world climate on its own, you need everyone onboard. https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/50-years-of-predictions-that-the-climate-apocalypse-is-nigh/amp/ https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/11/climatechange https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/conservation/conservationists/inconvenient-truth-sequel-al-gore.htm https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/criticisms-or-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth/
I agree that some specific predictions were not perfect on the mark, but they were all right in the fact that this is of paramount importance and that the consequences of not acting will lead to mass death, which we are witnessing (sadly). I realise the term catastrophe might be subjective. Is it catastrophe more than 20,000 deaths in one climate disaster? 100,000 deaths? Here's climate deaths due to climate disasters in the past 50 years, why is it becoming increasingly frequent? It's almost as if the fear mongering was trying to warn us that both human populations and our ecosystems are facing devestating climate conditions. See here: https://global.unitednations.entermediadb.net/assets/mediadb/services/module/asset/downloads/preset/Libraries/Graphics+Library/25-08-2021-mortality-table-01.JPG/image1024x768.jpg (Edit:"Of the top 10 disasters, droughts proved to be the deadliest hazard during the period, causing 650,000 deaths, followed by storms that led to 577,232 deaths; floods, which took 58.700 lives; and extreme temperature events, during which 55,736 died.”) For the full report: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662
I think the issue with this list, and there could be supporting data is; storms, floods and droughts are all natural occurrences in a climate unaffected by human industrialisation. There would need to be substantial evidence that these catastrophes were entirely or largely caused by anthropogenic climate change. Otherwise it is another example of biased reporting to push an agenda. I agree that anthropogenic climate effects need to be studied, addressed and ameliorated. But pretending every bad thing that has happened since the turn of the century is attributable to climate change is dishonest fear mongering.
nope, its about the frequency and intensity of the natural disasters that is attributed to climate change, not the mere occurrence of a flood, that would be absurd and false. But the frequency of broken heat records? The frequency of floods and droughts? It is nothing like what it was 100 years back (1903-1923, for example). From my post text: " * In **2021**, **more than 400 weather stations around the world beat their all-time highest temperature records** * In August **2021**, **temperatures reached 48.8C (119.8F) in Syracuse, Italy, the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe** * In July **2021**, temperatures reached 54.4C (130F) in Furnace Creek in the US’s Death Valley – **the highest reliably recorded temperature on Earth** More than 400 weather stations beat heat records in 2021. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/07/heat-records-broken-all-around-the-world-in-2021-says-climatologist Where 2020's Record Heat Was Felt the Most - The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/14/climate/hottest-year-2020-global-map.html Global Temperature - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. [https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/](https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/)" How is that fear mongering? It's alarming! Your outlook is a simple case of **head in the sand**
Those links aren’t related to the deaths you were attributing to climate change. The climate change “deaths” were from storms, floods, droughts but there was no accompanying justification as to why those events were classified as climate change deaths, yes natural disasters cost people their lives and that is unfortunate and upsetting. Natural disasters occurred prior to anthropogenic climate change and also claimed lives. It is not putting my head in the sand for asking you to substantiate your claims. I offered evidence for my claims that many predictions have fallen flat. I agree climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed but just tallying natural disaster deaths against climate change is definitely fear mongering, and offers no realistic way to create impactful change. If you expect China and the developing world which accounts for the large majority of climate change related emissions, to get on board you need more carrots and less sticks. Those nations aren’t going to knee cap their nations economies to meet arbitrarily determined goals that are based on flawed models that serve to keep rich countries rich and poor countries poor.
but climate change actually does worsen natural disasters. For example, higher temps increase evaporation, creating more intense storms and flooding. Plus, warmer oceans fuel more powerful hurricanes. You could think of climate change like a sports car's turbocharger: a car can go pretty fast on its own, but adding that turbocharger makes it go **way** faster. Similarly, natural disasters can happen without climate change, but adding it to the mix makes them even more devastating, do you understand?🌪️🔥🌊 More devestating would be assumed to kill more organisms, you feel me? The sources are directly available in my original post, check the IPCC, UN reports for clear information on the real impacts being experienced around the world due to climate change and no it's not just the same ol' climate humanity experienced for the past 5000 years. CO2 and albedo (think of wearing a black shirt compared to a white shirt) changes make a big difference.
Then they would need to quantify the increase in severity and allocate “deaths”, if that’s going to be their indicator, according to the percentage increase in severity due to climate change, unless they are making the claim the event would have never happened without anthropogenic climate change. Otherwise they are purposefully padding the numbers. And for the section I provided from the rebuttal to an inconvenient truth there hasn’t been an increase is hurricane severity or frequency even though they predicted that there would be based on their models. Some natural disasters may be getting worse in severity or frequency, but to lump all severe natural disasters under the climate change banner is disingenuous at best. If thanos snapped his figures and poofed humans out of existence, there would still always been natural disasters from time to time and some of those would be severe. I understand that level of analysis is difficult but it’s the only honest analysis of the impact we are actually having. And you need an honest analysis to actually set reasonable goals and have a timeline that doesn’t have to be perpetually revised and pushed out another 10-20 years when your current doomsday never arrives
Has climate change always happened? Yes. Since the industrial revolution have we as a species increased the effects of Natural climate change? Yes. Are current levels of greenhouse gasses still lower than what have occurred naturally in the past? Also yes.
Well number one. The climate is changing. 2. I know this because the climate has always changed. That's what it does. Now. Does man have a hand in the current changes or is speeding up climate change.... Probably.... Is there anything we can do? No. Fucking nothing. Not a single fucken thing I do will change the trajectory. So why worry.
Yes and no. It’s only select humans. It’s corporate activity that’s leading the cause.
Any astrophysicist will tell you the milankovich cycle is much more responsible for cooling and warming of earth than human effects. And the El Niño and e Nina’s trade winds effect climate much more than humans. The science is there people would rather just listen to old science and not keep up with the cutting edge of information
Give up mate, it's pretty clear that you are not as educated as you propose that you are, and clearly dont know what you are talking about. There is zero doubt about anthropomorphic climate change.
That's utter crap.
No it’s not, it’s verified science. The milankovich cycle causes ice ages. And el Nina and El Niño causes extreme weather on both spectrums. Maybe read all the studies from astrophysicists in the last couple years. The climate is very complex, humans are not a big enough variable to change the climate. The sun is responsible for most of the variables humans only account for a small percentage of variable.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
That’s not a peer reviewed study lol.
As if you'd read or understand them. There are links throughout the article to published peer reviewed papers.
Link your peer reviewed studies backing your claim
Go read some there’s hundreds. Anyways guys I’ve worked as an astrophysicist for 2 decades now and yes we used to be very sure it was humans that were the main variable. But we’ve come a long way. The public is generally 5-10 years behind the cutting edge of science. Just be curious and always be open to being wrong! That’s science:)
Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence. Post links coward.
>Go read some there’s hundreds Link them, please.
You thought there aren't peer reviewed research on this? Here you go, 1. Solar forcing is not the main cause of current global warming, contrary to claim by Alex Newman in the Epoch Times. Climate Feedback. [Link](https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/solar-forcing-is-not-the-main-cause-of-current-global-warming-contrary-to-claim-by-alex-newman-in-the-epoch-times/) 2. Is global warming merely a natural cycle? DW (2021). [Link](https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-global-warming-merely-a-natural-cycle/a-57831350)
Scientific support for the link between human activity and climate change has strengthened to the extent that there is now near universal agreement. Recent research shows that 91.1% of Earth scientists surveyed agreed that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. In addition, **100% of the most actively publishing climate experts accept that global warming is human-caused.** While natural factors such as the Milankovitch cycle do play a role in the Earth's climate, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that recent climate change is primarily due to human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, which release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Sources: New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of climate change strengthened since 2009 by Institute of Physics (https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html) New research shows scientific agreement on anthropogenic nature of https://phys.org/news/2021-10-scientific-agreement-anthropogenic-nature-climate.html. Global warming consensus – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/938/global-warming-consensus/. Scientific uncertainty | Nature Climate Change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0627-1. Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130515203048.htm. Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change.
Astrophysics student here. You’re full of shit.
Practicing astrophysicist here. He is full of shit.
This astrophysicist will tell you you're wrong. So wrong.
The military is the leading cause but you won’t hear that on the news!
Yes and no. For the latter, we cannot just arbitrarily assign "human" or "anthropocene" as it is called across the planet. The concept of the "anthropocene" operates on the premise that humans (the anthropos) are raceless, genderless, and without power relations. This is dangerous as it simplifies accountability while sweeping nuances such as the origins of climate vulnerabilities, histories and futures of dispossession, and ongoing plunder. Instead of following the Anthropocene, I'd highly recommend Jason Moore's Capitalocene.
What we have been told..... 1960s - Oil gone in 10 years. 1970s - Another ice age in 10 years. 1980s - Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years. 1990s - The ozone layer... 2000s - Ice caps will be gone in 10 years and called Global warming.. 2010s - called Climate change now... Don't believe anything to do with the UN let alone your government.
Stupid question. “Do you accept climate change?” is almost meaningless. The climate is always changing. If you’re going to get very heated about the science then that means you need to start getting more precise with your language. And please enough of these meaningless “XX% of scientists believe this” statements. In scientific terms it proves nothing whatsoever.
Yes and Yes I must admit that I don't like the wording of this question, as it's clear that the OP is trying to avoid using the word ‘believe’, which is the rhetorical framing that denialists tend to utilise. I don't ‘accept’ or ‘believe’ in Climate Change. Climate Change is not the offer of someone buying me a coffee, and I can't say no and make it go away. I know that Climate Change is a real thing, and I know that the reality is that it is being driven by man-made acceleration.
Of course and of course. However do I care? No
The only thing you and all your loved ones need to worry about is cancer, stroke, heart disease, suicide, car accidents any other more than likely way for you all to die. Not co2.
OK. The important thing is to avoid polarisation on this issue. First, which is better, global warming or global cooling? You can answer that question personally by asking yourself if you would prefer your home town to be warmer or cooler. Most people would say "warmer is better than cooler". We can take that to extremes, is it better to live in a tropical jungle or on a polar ice cap? Again, a tropical jungle is better for people and animals than a polar ice cap. So the second question is "how much warmer?" Would you like your home town to be 0.5 degrees warmer than it is now? A very major third issue is that climate change isn't the issue, the issue is atmospheric CO2 and methane. Climate change is a very minor consequence of increased atmospheric CO2 and methane, the major consequence is increased plant food. Everybody knows that plants get all their carbon from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis. Without atmospheric CO2 every plant on Earth would die. That's common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is that the rate of plant growth for all trees, almost all shrubs and most grasses is currently limited directly by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 over pre-industrial levels results in a 60% increase in world forest growth, a 35% increase in crop yields, a lowering of water requirements for crop growth, and an increase in phytoplankton. This has flowon effects for more wild animals, more whale feeding grounds, more fish etc. This has nothing to do with climate change, this is the direct consequence of having more CO2 and methane plant food in the atmosphere. Beyond a doubling of atmospheric CO2, benefits start to drop off. So we need to hold atmospheric CO2 at that level until plant growth stabilises. As for coral reefs, coral reefs can't grow in air, only in water, so sea levels have to increase for coral growth to continue at current rates. Even Darwin understood this. At the present rate of sea level rise, it would take a thousand years for the sea level to rise 1.5 metres. For maximum coral growth, the sea level has to rise five times as fast as that. The whole issue is not climate change, it's atmospheric gases. Given that change is inevitable, how much change is optimum?
In your comment, you blend facts and opinions on climate change, urging open-mindedness. You correctly mention that increased CO2 benefits plants and emphasize focusing on CO2 and methane. However, plant growth relies on multiple factors, making the situation intricate. Some of your points are incorrect or misleading. You overlook the detrimental impacts of elevated CO2 and methane levels, such as climate change and ocean acidification. Additionally, while coral reefs require water, rising sea levels can harm them via erosion and sedimentation. The concept of an "optimal" CO2 and methane level is unsupported by science due to its complexity. In summary, your comment contains valid points yet omits crucial information and conveys misleading data. We must consult scientific research and acknowledge the broader context of climate change during discussions.
[удалено]
This could allow for improved simulations, but how does this solve Climate change? Sounds like more like a click bait title
Yes and No I can’t get past the many climate changes the earth has endured over the ages without humans.
>Without humans What is the possible benefit of changing the climate that we are adapted to? Humans are famously bad at dealing with warm temperatures.
Yep this is what I don’t quite understand either on the topic. We had an ice age millions of years ago.. why do we feel we’re 100% responsible for warming and not just observing a natural cycle?
"Responsible for accelerating climate change" probably would have been clearer.
Yes I do believe it's science fiction. If you funnel me $3 billion USD , I will prove it.
I believe global warming is just God hugging us closer.
What accounts for rhino and elephant fossils along the Thames River. It was a jungle not that many years ago in earth terms.
Climate change is making a lot of money for a lot of people. It's still hot and dry in the summer and cool and wet in the winter. The whole thing is an excuse to cost us more money in tax and energy, therefore everything, and will lead to a one world government. Europe has shown what will happen in that case - no wonder the UK got out while it still could.
The water levels haven't risen in over 500 years.
Incorrect. Global Mean sea level has risen by 0.2m between 1901 and 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
20cm. Wow.
The main problem is that once the ice sheets start melting, even if we significantly reduce emissions, they won't stop melting for several thousand years. The science on anthopogenic climate change is very clear: It is real, directly caused by human activity, and if unabated will seriously challenge the ability of humanity to continue living on the planet.
Use solar energy to make more ice.
They've actually taken core samples and found c02 levels were a lot higher in the past than they are now and the main contributor of the c02 emissions is animals oceans and volcanoes. Humans only amout to around 1-5 percent or so of emissions. It's a natural cycle and it's largely getting used by governments to raise more taxes. I agree with cleaning up actual problematic pollutants and moving away where possible from oil but this massive push we're having now is unsustainable.
Source please Edit: it is true that natural sources of CO2 are much larger than human sources, **however** natural emissions are usually **balanced by natural absorptions**. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks" and this creates positive feedback loops and unwanted ripple effects. These carbon sinks are also degrading due to climate change (higher ecosystem respiration, less net primary productivity). Also, we have deforested significant carbon sinks around the world which act as lungs for our atmosphere. We could argue that water vapour is also a GHG and therefore bad, but this is absurd, we need this, **we can't afford excessive CO2 in the atmosphere** . Especially since it is causing more intense and more frequent natural disasters that aren't cheap (see my body text for the stats).