Oklahomans & Global Warming

[Tundra]

I wished I could vote for more than one...

[dankrutka]

It's not that I "believe" climate change is real, but that scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates such. Could there be errors in our scientific understandings of such a complex phenomenon? Of course, but you still have to use your best information to make the best possible decisions. 99% of the climate change doubt is pure political propaganda due to other interests.

[Tundra]

Who caused climate changes , say 50k years ago?

[zachj7]

The Earth did it naturally over long time period 50k years ago. Duh. We are talking about the here and now and how the climate changes over such a short time period.

[Tundra]

The Earth did it naturally over long time period 50k years ago. Duh. We are talking about the here and now and how the climate changes over such a short time period.

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

[Uptowner]

I think he's saying that during the current 11.7 thousand year phase of the Holocene epoch of the quaternary period, that began 2.6 million years ago, of the Cenozoic era that began 66 million years ago. Our 2.6 million year period is classified as such because that was event of the last "ice age" (a term coined in the early 1800s by a botanist btw.) and ice sheets like Antarctica have proven their age. The ice took millions of years to form, and millions of years to melt. Time in which our species has done pretty well for ourselves.

There's absolutely ZERO evidence that the global temperature has ever risen this fast. Or fallen for that matter. All those movies where the dinosaurs or Jake Gyllenhall have to run because the ice is chasing them? A bit off-fact. But it is scary when the temperature rises more in a couple decades than since man first discovered he could put mercury in a tube and write down the data.

Now look at what we've done as a species to change the chemical makeup of our atmosphere. I don't care which direction you point to, whether carbon, or methane, CFCs, ammonia, there's simply no argument that we haven't altered our environment. If you don't believe certain gasses heat more rapidly than others. Anyone with a sheet of plastic, a few sticks, and some household items like keyboard cleaner or dog poop can test the greenhouse effect in their backyard. I think at this point it becomes pretty easy to put two and two together.

I get that this upsets a lot of people. I'm not going to climb any higher on my soap box and say fossil fuels have to stop. But I get that this is beyond bad news with their lives and legacies invested in fuel energy. But the candlemakers and ice merchants survived. The milk men moved on, and the fire wood vendor adapted.

[Uptowner]

And when was the last time an energy company lied about something? Did something shady, or paid a politician or scientist to lie? Indoctrinated it's employees and see people like Karen Silkwood disappear? And I'm sure the labor unions NEVER use the same practices...

The very essence of science is truth and fact.

[TheTravellers]

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

Humans and their activities of burning fossil fuels are accelerating the change beyond what will be sustainable for our current standard of living, and it will happen in the next few decades to some degree, even if we decide to stop all burning of fossil fuels on the entire earth today.

Can't believe we're still discussing this as if it weren't happening or not caused by humans... Here's a tip - pretty much everybody in the world except USA Republicans and conservatives believe that anthropogenic global warming is real.

[bchris02]

Can't believe we're still discussing this as if it weren't happening or not caused by humans... Here's a tip - pretty much everybody in the world except USA Republicans and conservatives believe that anthropogenic global warming is real.

This. Most people who are promoting the idea that global warming is a hoax are people with agenda.

One thing I've never understood about this issue is how those who deny climate change in the general population are mostly evangelical Christians. The Bible tells us to care for the earth and doesn't say that God will prevent humans will not have to suffer the consequences for ruining the environment. Of course it has little to say about environmentalism period as humans didn't have the capability during the Bronze Age to do what they can do today, but it still says to care for the earth.

Climate denialism is all about capitalism and they have exploited evangelicals' skepticism towards science in order to gain support.

[Tundra]

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

[tfvc.org]

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

Vegan. Although I do drive, when I go to these new unearth friendly malls I walk from store to store instead of walking in to store, walk out of store, drive 100 feet, walk into store...

[bchris02]

So how many of you, only ride a bike or walk? Have installed solar or wind power at your homes? And Are Vegans ?

I wish I could live without a car but I can't in OKC. I have moved closer to my job though and currently drive way, way less than I did when I lived on the suburban fringe.

The vegan/vegetarian issue is completely separate and unrelated to climate change.

Whether or not you believe humans are causing climate change, everyone would benefit from a cleaner environment. Even if you take climate risk out of the equation, when you look at what is currently happening in China, an environmental catastrophe is just waiting to happen. The planet simply doesn't have the resources to support everyone living the suburban lifestyle that Americans have enjoyed over the past 60 years. When you think about it, we have 6,000 or so years of recorded human history and the "American Dream(TM)" has only been a thing for a little over a half century. Before that, people had to live efficiently and in harmony with their environment.

The only way this will ever be sustainable is if a clean, renewable form of energy is developed. Right now, the technology isn't quite there, or it is stigmatized (nuclear). Humanity cannot continue living like the past 60 years on fossil fuels.

[u50254082]

I used to work with some of the research professors at the Norman NWC. One day I asked the question about global warming, against my general stance to not introduce politics into everyday life.

The answer I got was:

The earth does warm up and cool down on cycles.

We are not sure at this time if human activity contributes to it.

That answer is good enough for me. Now I'll go duck inside before I get assaulted with opinions from people who didn't study meteorology.

[u50254082]

Whether or not you believe humans are causing climate change, everyone would benefit from a cleaner environment. Even if you take climate risk out of the equation, when you look at what is currently happening in China, an environmental catastrophe is just waiting to happen. The planet simply doesn't have the resources to support everyone living the suburban lifestyle that Americans have enjoyed over the past 60 years. When you think about it, we have 6,000 or so years of recorded human history and the "American Dream(TM)" has only been a thing for a little over a half century. Before that, people had to live efficiently and in harmony with their environment.

The only way this will ever be sustainable is if a clean, renewable form of energy is developed. Right now, the technology isn't quite there, or it is stigmatized (nuclear). Humanity cannot continue living like the past 60 years on fossil fuels.

Agreed

[baralheia]

I used to work with some of the research professors at the Norman NWC. One day I asked the question about global warming, against my general stance to not introduce politics into everyday life.

The answer I got was:

The earth does warm up and cool down on cycles.

We are not sure at this time if human activity contributes to it.

That answer is good enough for me. Now I'll go duck inside before I get assaulted with opinions from people who didn't study meteorology.

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.

[stile99]

I 'believe' it is real in the sense that I 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow, I 'believe' it will rise in the East, I 'believe' water is wet and I 'believe' fire is hot.

Now, if you change the question to do I believe humans cause/contribute to it, I will change my answer to I 'believe' we can't really afford to ignore the possibility. A year ago there was 'no proven link between wastewater injection and earthquakes' and now we have three a day. Punching yourself in the head and continuing to do so because "nobody has 'proven' it is the cause of my headaches" is just blatant stupidity.

[tfvc.org]

The vegan/vegetarian issue is completely separate and unrelated to climate change.

How Meat Contributes to Global Warming - Scientific American

...Yet according to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), our diets and, specifically, the meat in them cause more greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, and the like to spew into the atmosphere than either transportation or industry. (Greenhouse gases trap solar energy, thereby warming the earth's surface. Because gases vary in greenhouse potency, every greenhouse gas is usually expressed as an amount of CO2 with the same global-warming potential.)...

More: https://www.google.com/search?q=glob...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

[Uptowner]

^^^^^^ this.

[u50254082]

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.

Within the past year or so. I'm still friends with one of the profs so I'll see if I can approach the subject again when I see him for lunch next time.

[dankrutka]

So you're saying the earth doesn't naturally change anymore, that humans are responsible?

The change in climate is very different than it was in the past and the climate is clearly becoming warmer in a way that is different and caused by humans. There are a ton of scientific articles on this if you're really interested.

[dankrutka]

I 'believe' it is real in the sense that I 'believe' the sun will rise tomorrow, I 'believe' it will rise in the East, I 'believe' water is wet and I 'believe' fire is hot.

Now, if you change the question to do I believe humans cause/contribute to it, I will change my answer to I 'believe' we can't really afford to ignore the possibility. A year ago there was 'no proven link between wastewater injection and earthquakes' and now we have three a day. Punching yourself in the head and continuing to do so because "nobody has 'proven' it is the cause of my headaches" is just blatant stupidity.

This is a great example because the majority of scientists indicated this well before a year ago, but people with other political interests tried to confound the argument. Not much different from climate change. The argument against climate change is not usually scientific, but ideological, religious, political, or financial.

[dankrutka]

My only question would be, how long ago was this? I know that scientists have been studying climate data for quite some time trying to figure out if there is an association between human activities and climate change, and that it seems like opinions are changing as more and more data are collected. I'm absolutely not trying to assault, merely trying to understand a frame of reference.

The scientific community has not been changing its opinion on this, but consistently arguing the same thing for a while now. Again, the changing opinions are political and rarely grounded in serious science.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should believe anything with absolute truth or we should quit asking questions, but the scientific consensus has been held for quite a while now and morally we have to move on the best evidence available.

[tfvc.org]

I am not a big fan of Al Gore, especially because of his wife and the PMRC (an entirely different argument) but if you ever watched his global warming movie he never ever mentioned the meat and dairy industries as being a contributor of climate change, the reason is because his family was pig farmers and he still has (or had ties) to that industry when he filmed it. To me for him to announce that he went vegan a couple years ago is huge. It is like a big turn around of his being. Not saying it is as big as the pope going atheist, but it is pretty big to me and says a lot to how the industries is the big elephant in the room that no one talks about. Those industries has deep pockets and a stranglehold on politicians and the government entities who are in charge of that.

[baralheia]

The scientific community has not been changing its opinion on this, but consistently arguing the same thing for a while now. Again, the changing opinions are political and rarely grounded in serious science.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should believe anything with absolute truth or we should quit asking questions, but the scientific consensus has been held for quite a while now and morally we have to move on the best evidence available.

I meant that in a "more and more individual scientists are coming to the conclusion that humans are influencing climate change" sort of way. Not everyone was on the bandwagon from the word go. I am not a climate scientist myself, but I am of the opinion that human activity very likely is spurring climate change.

[Tundra]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

PROVIDING INSIGHT
INTO CLIMATE CHANGE
MYTHS / FACTS
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that. See here for more information.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased by about 120 part per million (ppm), most of which is likely due to human-caused CO2 emissions. The RATE of growth during this century has been about 0.55%/year. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it. The graph here shows changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). A major study here shows that CO2 fertilization will likely increase the value of crop production between now and 2050 by an additional $11.7 trillion ($US 2014). See here for more discussion.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting. See here for graphs and discussion of extreme weather.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of man-made global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming and the polar ice caps are breaking up and melting.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing. North polar temperature graph here. South polar temperature graph here. See here for sea ice extent.

More FACTS and MYTHS? See what Professor deFreitas has to say. Click here.

- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#.dpuf