US to pull out of Paris accord.

[studio150]

I really need to get up to speed on the issue of CO2 emissions but here's where I'm at and why I find it so confusing:

We read about the success of the 1987 Montreal Protocol to reduced CFCs and now the Ozone hole is closing and will be closed within decades. The Climate Change websites make a big deal about this and rightly so and I've seen more than one quote data that NASA has provided proving all this. However, NASA also recently produced data about the ice caps and how since 2012, they've been increasing. The aforementioned websites when talking about ice caps either don't acknowledge the NASA data as credible or don't mention it at all. They all believe the ice caps still to be melting and at an alarming rate and state this with some compelling evidence - tracking polar bear movements, David Attenborough showing examples of glacier regions photographed by Shackleton compared to now etc etc.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just genuinely confused. I've no idea whether the ice caps are melting or not. And in just trying to find out I get increasingly suspicious of vested interests on all sides. Hence my original ask about a site, a book or a person who can present the case for and against fairly.

I think you can say that the ice caps are melting. I have seen a few programmes which while not ficused on climate change have shown the impact on polar bears seals etc. Also on shipping where the ice is receding compared to historic data and thete is possibilities of shipping lanes staying open all year.
While not ice caps I have seen the effect on glaciers in Norway and how they are receding.

Whether this is man made or just natural as others have stated I fall on the side that we do not help the situation.

I will leave you to your research. Just let us know if after reading deeper into this topic you decide to vote Green

 

[brakespear]

Climate change aside, the use of renewable forms of energy production is the here and now and him pulling out of this deal means burning more gas and oil which is economically illiterate.

And coal too, leading to an increase in air pollution presumably.

 

[CHAPPERS]

And coal too, leading to an increase in air pollution presumably.

Indeed, not sure why I left that out.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Well, according to Piers Corbyn, Jeremy's even more lunatic brother, man made climate change is a myth, so he's right behind the Trumpster.

 

[Triggaaar]

look up next ice age which is apparently due

We're still in an ice age.

 

[portlock seagull]

Trumps latest 'gaffe' (and they don't come bigger than not tackling climate change) just reinforces two human traits at the heart of this issue in my mind:

1. Humans are inherintely selfish
2. Despite all the evidence and stark reality staring us in the face, many will always argue black is white up to and including the very moment the ship sinks or fire consumes them etc.

Which is why this planet is f***** and I knew that when I first heard about the hole in the Ozone layer back in the mid to late 80s.
Providing alive and richer than the next, millions of us couldn't give a flying fig about the rest of humankind. The billions of other species that have the misfortune of sharing the planet with us then trail a very very distant 3rd. Almost to the point of going in noticed.

Mother Nature will give us such a spanking one day in retaliation that we literally might not live to regret it. All very depressing.

 

[Fungus]

Trump: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Mayor of Pittsburgh: "Pittsburgh stands with the world and will follow Paris agreement. I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris agreement for our people, our economy and future.”

I believe a few US states have voice similar opinions.

 

[sparkie]

Trump: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Mayor of Pittsburgh: "Pittsburgh stands with the world and will follow Paris agreement. I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris agreement for our people, our economy and future.”

I believe a few US states have voice similar opinions.

He misread his autocue.

He meant to say St. Petersberg not Pittsburgh.

[emoji38]ol:

 

[Triggaaar]

Away from the climate change issue on this. He won't be able to drive this through.

''Big Business'' who I have a distaste for I must add will challenge it in the coming months because they need to sell themselves globally and it will affect Revenue in the US due to this policy. The man is mad he can't even realise that these large companies in the US will be unable to sell overseas at the same level as they currently do, if they pull out of this, thus affecting the levels of income coming into the US.

Indeed. It's telling that China are sticking to the agreement. IMO China couldn't give a flying **** about the environment, they will do what's best for China and to hell with the rest of the world. So if they're sticking to the agreement, it's because it makes economic sense.

 

[Triggaaar]

But the effects and variations of the short periods you describe - whether they are one year or 20 year periods - are miniscule compared to the bigger trends over the last 150 years. That's what we mean by saying look at the bigger picture. Small variations happen because of all sorts of cycles and events. It's the larger, more general trends that are of concern.

If we have an extremely cold year next year, that doesn't mean global warming is a lie. If we have an extremely hot year, it also doesn't support it. Even if the next 5 years in a row are the hottest or coldest we've had in 10 years, this doesn't back up or go against global warming. However, if there was a trend over the next, say, 50-100 years in either direction, then that is convincing evidence.

I agree with your principal of looking at longer time frames, but it's still difficult to interpret the data, because the world goes through hot and cold periods over thousands of years.

 

[Seagull27]

I agree with your principal of looking at longer time frames, but it's still difficult to interpret the data, because the world goes through hot and cold periods over thousands of years.

Yes we have - but those cold and hot periods have transitioned at a much slower rate than now and the environment has been able to adapt. We're talking changes over 1000s of years rather than 150-200. Again, I think this infographic demonstrates it well - it's the rate of change that is troubling:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes we have - but those cold and hot periods have transitioned at a much slower rate than now and the environment has been able to adapt.

Adapt? By what yardstick? It doesn't matter what we do, we could let off every nuke on the planet and the environment will adapt. The planet will go on regardless of what we do to it.

We're talking changes over 1000s of years rather than 150-200.

Do we even have the data to show how temperatures have changed in the past over short time-frames like 150 years?

 

[East Preston Gull]

Trumps latest 'gaffe' (and they don't come bigger than not tackling climate change) just reinforces two human traits at the heart of this issue in my mind:

1. Humans are inherintely selfish
2. Despite all the evidence and stark reality staring us in the face, many will always argue black is white up to and including the very moment the ship sinks or fire consumes them etc.

Which is why this planet is f***** and I knew that when I first heard about the hole in the Ozone layer back in the mid to late 80s.
Providing alive and richer than the next, millions of us couldn't give a flying fig about the rest of humankind. The billions of other species that have the misfortune of sharing the planet with us then trail a very very distant 3rd. Almost to the point of going in noticed.

Mother Nature will give us such a spanking one day in retaliation that we literally might not live to regret it. All very depressing.

I struggle with the man made climate change theory. I believe it is just mother nature's cycle and will not be put right by us putting less water in the kettle.

The climate change lobby border on hysterical lunatics if someone disagrees with them.

However any country that does not invest in renewable technology is quite insane. We may not be on this earth for long but it would be nice to breath fresh air and stop bleeding the earth of its raw materials.

I am a man made climate change denier but recycle everything I can and long for the day our coasts are covered in wind turbines and tidal wave power generators.



Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[CHAPPERS]

Do we even have the data to show how temperatures have changed in the past over short time-frames like 150 years?

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Wasn't too hard

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Not like Trump to pull out. Allegedly, obviously.

 

[Triggaaar]

it's the rate of change that is troubling:

https://xkcd.com/1732/

According to that, the global temperature has gone from 0 degrees to 0.7 degrees in the last 40 years, and that is the path they claim we're on. Where is the data that shows the temperature has risen that much?

 

[Triggaaar]

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Wasn't too hard

That doesn't show how temperatures have changed in the past over short time-frames like 150 years. That shows how they've changed in the last 100+ years, not how they changed between say 10,000 BC and 9,850 BC.

We have an idea of what temperatures were like thousands of years ago, but do we know how rapidly they fluctuated back then?

 

[TimWatt]

I struggle with the man made climate change theory. I believe it is just mother nature's cycle and will not be put right by us putting less water in the kettle.

The climate change lobby border on hysterical lunatics if someone disagrees with them.

However any country that does not invest in renewable technology is quite insane. We may not be on this earth for long but it would be nice to breath fresh air and stop bleeding the earth of its raw materials.

I am a man made climate change denier but recycle everything I can and long for the day our coasts are covered in wind turbines and tidal wave power generators.



Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Struggle all you wish. Certain things concern belief or opinion but science deals with observable reality.

Science is all about probabilities, and perhaps there's a 90% or greater probability that human action is the cause - but let me put that starkly. Select nine bullets and one blank and randomly load in a weapon pointed to your child's head.

Is carrying on as if that's a risk worth ignoring and should just be a matter of business as normal....?

 

[pb21]

I struggle with the man made climate change theory. I believe it is just mother nature's cycle and will not be put right by us putting less water in the kettle.

The climate change lobby border on hysterical lunatics if someone disagrees with them.

However any country that does not invest in renewable technology is quite insane. We may not be on this earth for long but it would be nice to breath fresh air and stop bleeding the earth of its raw materials.

I am a man made climate change denier but recycle everything I can and long for the day our coasts are covered in wind turbines and tidal wave power generators.



Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

You may be well placed to answer my questions then?

1. Why does the theory of climate change exist in the first place?

2. Why do the vast majority of those who are suitably qualified and informed agree with the general principal and scientific theory?

3. Why do the vast majority of states accept the general principal and scientific theory, and why have they implemented schemes and measures etc. to reduce the impact?

4. Why do you choose to believe the sceptical side, after all I presume you don't think climate change is proven and therefore on the same basis cannot think that it is proven that it doesn't exist.

5. If climate change is proven to exist, how do you think it should be tackled?

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Trump is playing his usual card. He had no need at all to pull out of this agreement, but he's doing it anyway because he wants to look like the big strong leader to all of his voters and keep his friends in the fossil fuel industry happy.

"I was elected to represent Pittsburgh not Paris"... what kind of man says things like that? He's not intelligent enough to be in that office IMO. Read his tweets. Honestly, I mean HONESTLY. It's very hard not to draw the conclusion that he's a buffoon.

I don't think the effects of this are as bad as people are making out to be honest. It's just typical Trump. The entire world is on the same page except Donny who wants to wave his willy and beat his chest.

Clean ****ing coal... give me a break.