Depends on how big and what it hits: if it’s <5 km across and hits something non-volatile (not limestone, gypsum, anhydrite, etc.), then it might not be as bad as what’s happening now. I wouldn’t guarantee it, though.
The government “solution” will be far worse than anything the climate is going through.
Mark my words.
I haven’t heard anything about this lately – does anyone have anything on it? The conclusion is that it is already happening (and no, it’s not ‘chemtrails’ 
):
(A pertinent introductory quote from the NOVA transcript):
For 15 years, Travis had been researching a relatively obscure topic: whether the vapor trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the weather. In the aftermath of 9/11, the entire U.S. fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.
The short answer is yes, and big time.
There is a place for expertise in all areas of human endeavor. Heck, you aren’t even allowed to practice medicine without proper credentials.
Actually the wealthy oil companies fund climate contrarians. They use the same playbook developed by the tobacco companies who avoided regulation for so long. (See “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes)
60% is not 100% and concerns population. And land mass is not the same as population.
2 Likes
What big organizations and big government are doing would have you or I thrown in prison for life were we to even attempt it.
Where is their right?
Yes, they call it “cloud seeding” and it is used to manipulate the weather. Yesterday’s “conspiracy theories” are Tomorrow’s headlines, it seems of late.
Expertise and consensus change with new data. That other galaxies exist was once debated. The Big Bang was not the consensus position at one time. Relativity was rejected when it first appeared. Alfred Wegener could provide no mechanism for mobile continents.bin not convinced we have all the inner working of the climate system mapped out and limited data doesn’t give me more confidence either.
What experts believe can and does change. There is great wisdom in relying on experts, formally trained in a subject or field, as opposed to some guy who likes to explain the truth of the world to people on the Facebook page of his local diner. But expert consensus has to be based on scientific data not polling.
The consensus comes from extracts that actually address the issue (many do not), 97% believe humans are contributing to rising temperatures. The consensus says nothing more than that. Those scientists may or may not agree with alarmists or the strategies you may want to employ.
Yes, accuse all credentialed scientists who disagree with the consensus of being greedy and funded by oil money. My friends who deny human warming tell me the exact opposite. You can’t get a grant or do any research if you aren’t on the global climate change. Thus, it is self perpetuating. Everyone likes to accuse everyone else’s motives.
How about maybe the climate is complex and not perfectly mapped out, our data is very incomplete and there is much room for expert disagreement?
Deniers and alarmists… same tactics, same coin, just different sides of it.
We have been at the threshold of doom for a long while and as long as people continue dumping billions of dollars we will stay there. Headlines like this are here to stay:
A dangerous climate threshold is near, but ‘it does not mean we are doomed’ if swift action is taken, scientists say”
Reminds me of the joke about the doctor who told his patient he had 3 months to live. The patient said I won’t be able to pay my bill by then so the doctor says, “okay, I’ll give you an extra 3 months.”
No. CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. That’s about a 40% increase.
The natural levels bounce between 180 and 280 ppm, as defined by glacial and interglacial periods. There is absolutely nothing natural about 400+ ppm.
We also know that this 40% increase is due to fossil fuels. This is because fossil fuels are rich in 12C compared to normal isotope levels in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels being the product of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis slightly favors the lighter carbon isotope, and that is seen in the fossil fuels that come from organisms that photosynthesize. Guess what? The 40% increase in CO2 is rich in 12C and low in 13C just like fossil fuels are. We did this.
Whether it coincides with deforestation or not, the cause is the burning of fossil fuels as demonstrated by the change in isotope makeup.
Find good ways of reducing our use of fossil fuels.
Persecution complex much?
3 Likes
In the case of climate change, consensus really is based on scientific data. And the case is getting stronger, not weaker.
Where do I do that?
That is the complaint of the Intelligent Design folks – they don’t make progress because they can get funding. But what kind of grants have your contrarian friends written?
Right out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. Peddle doubt.
Science works by questioning things.
And is often stopped and significantly slowed down by those with vested interest in status quo. We could all still be piling up lead in our blood from leaded gasoline usage had not a couple brave scientists been willing to sacrifice their careers to show what was really happening. The fossil fuel industry just like the tobacco industry can be counted on to keep you misinformed or uninformed about anything that might impact their bottom line negatively.
4 Likes
Not since about the mid- to late-Miocene, at least. Of course, conditions were a bit different then: sea level about 50-100 meters higher, no extensive glaciers in the arctic, etc. It wasn’t to having crocodiles and tree shrews on Ellesmere like the early Eocene, but still a lot warmer than now.
Science works by addressing the evidence, not ignoring it.
Burning fossil fuels over the last 150 years has resulted in a 40% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere. We have known for over 100 years that this will necessarily increase global temperatures if all other factors stay the same (which they have).
Svante Arrhenius wrote a paper clear back in 1896 on this very topic. His rough calculations pointed to a 2C increase for a doubling in CO2. Again, this was back in 1896. It is absolutely no surprise to the scientific community that we are seeing an increase in global temps as we drastically increase CO2 in our atmosphere.
4 Likes
You make many excellent points, but things are even worse than you think. For one thing, climate change is upon us now, it’s not only about the future.
- Hurricanes have become deadlier because warmer air because can hold more water.
- Fire season in California and elsewhere has become longer and more destructive.
- Permafrost in Alaska and elsewhere is melting, releasing deadly methane into the atmosphere and causing infrastructure to buckle.
Additionally, the military is gravely concerned because it views climate change as a “threat multiplier,” destabilizing societies and radicalizing them. We’ve already seen that in the Syrian refugee crisis. Consider the hateful rhetoric of conservatives here in the U.S. against desperate immigrants, and how radical they have become. The book I mentioned elsewhere shows how changes in climate cause religious upheavals.
What, me worry?
1 Like
All changes start with individuals pushing it forward, consumerism plays a big role in what companies do. We’ve seen companies change policies based on consumerism. We as individuals are guilty just like we are guilty collectively as a species. It’s too big of a post to go into. But there is plenty of evidence out there supporting this. Pick up a handful of books by environmentalist and green movement companies.
2 Likes
I fully agree that climate change is reality now.
In some details, the game has already been lost. For example, small continental glaciers will disappear - the climate is already too warm. Permafrost close to the southern edge of the permafrost region will be lost. Some oceanic islands will be lost because of rising sea levels and stronger hurricane damage. Very likely we loose a large part of the coral reefs situated closest to the equator. Every extinction is an irreversible loss.
Yet, we still have time to reduce the damage. If we could lower the rise in average temperatures by 1-2 degrees (for example, +2.5 instead of +3.5-4.5), that would have an enormous impact on living conditions on the future earth.
The main problem is that there is not enough of will to act. People rather try to get short-term benefits than care about the bill that our children need to pay. This is especially true in politics and companies where the leaders try to maximize profits within the next 3 months or a year. If the alternatives are to invest one trillion now or 50-100 trillions after 15 years, people try to save the one trillion now.
1 Like
All very true. Companies wish to appear eco-friendly to their customers. But they can sometimes be guilty of “green-washing.” Have you seen “Green wash, explained with hamsters” ?
1 Like
All true though I am not sure why you felt the need to tell me that since I did not actually disagree with the notion that the burning of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution has warmed up the globe. C02 is a greenhouse gas and while it permits incoming visible SWR it traps outgoing LWR (infrared) emitted by the earth. We have known this since the 1800s (Tyndall).
This is a discussion forum, however. Consensus is important but appealing to it over and over is boring and is honestly not a real discussion. And the only part of the “consensus” I questioned was whether or not the majority of scientists agree on the modeled severity of continued fossil fuel use and/or the appropriate response (mitigation vs adaptation). That 97% of articles directly addressing this issue agree that anthropogenic warming is real does not mean they necessarily agree on everything else. Maybe they do but that has no been demonstrated.
And while fossil fuels are painted as evil, their benefit to the world has been incalculable. I’m also never going to agree that the government pumping half a trillion dollars into climate change is a good idea.
Some here think it is also okay to paint climate scientists who disagree with the consensus as puppets for big oil. But not for nothing, climate change has become big business. So what is good for the goose should be permitted for the gander. The world is too reliant on energy now to fix this problem. But as long as billions of dollars keep rolling in, they will naturally keep telling you there is still a chance to fix it. Sorry, but greed cuts both ways.
How many billions of dollars were lost and wasted with with these carbon capture and storage plants (CCS) that failed? I’m all for nuclear but I am also a realist. The world is too dependent on cheap energy and the government is too wasteful and many of these big corporations cannot be trusted with large sums of money. Might as well just have another bailout where CEOs give themselves 20 million dollar bonuses with tax payer money. So if these worst case predictions/models are in fact true, my advice to people, don’t have kids and advise your kids–assuming you already have them—not to have children either. Driving to work on a bike one day a week is shooting marshmallows at a tank.
Vinnie