Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists

[Pete in Panama]

There is zero controversy among climate scientists on the urgency or reality of anthropogenic global warming. The handful (less than 10 by my count) are either deluded blowhards who could not move on as the science moved (like the case of continental drift theory) or in the payroll of oil companies. Nobody (the other 200,000 + climate scientists) takes these people seriously...

Zero controversy except from bad people.

Cheers

 

[Pete in Panama]

Appeal to popularity fallacy aside .. while the overwhelming majority of us Science types agree that increased CO2 due to man is contributing to warming, the overall impact and effect is hotly debated.

What is not debated - least not in serious circles - is that current "Not in my back Yard. Dump it in the Ocean" Enviro policy has not only increased CO2 emissions from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons/year over the last 25 years .. but, led to huge increases in Ocean Pollution.

and what is not debated .. is that the impacts of man to the Ocean .. are signaling imminent catastrophic impact .. which will happen long before significant parts of Florida start disappearing due to Ocean levels rising.

So then do we find Ocean Pollution ... the fastest running horse in this two horse race to the abyss .. not plastered on the front page every second day .. but on page 85 in the bottom corner of the Sunday Times .. and of course in Publications like "Scientific American" but only nerds like me read that stuff .. not some secret .. or debated reality in serious circles .. and please do try .. would love to have the "which horse running faster" debate .. I beg it .. such is the slam dunk crucifixion of such position. .. which is why no one with any scientific accumen bothers to try .. all just nodding head in agreement at those big round lunch tables at conferences with names like "Bioremediation" .. attended that one in Baltimore some 2 decades back .. SME at your service should you be interested in degrading hydrocarbon contamination in soil and groundwater using innovative remediation technologies.

and on that note .. lets talk Persistant Organic Pollutants (POP) in the Ocean .. starting with mercury levels in Narn whales up north being so high -experts say is near neurological impairment .. or that breast milk of the Innuit women up north is so contaminated with various POP's that would not be allowed no store shelf ... or that nasty Sargassum epidemic in the Carribean .. was 5000 miles long last year .. wonder what that overflowing toilet has in store for us next year. . not in 100 years .. or even 10.

That is what transporting our pollution problems to other nations has got us .. hope you love that T-Shirt from China .. that is what our brilliant plan of offshorring our economy to China over last 40 years has brought us ..

as ZERO .. disagrees with the two primary factors of the CO2 increase mentioned above are 1) Population Growth and 2) Industrialization of non industrialized populations.

-and as stated in my previous post, the role of CO2 may not be relevant. Another thought, is that a case where something is "not debated" may be a case where none take it seriously.

 

[Valjean]

So, humans are going crazy? That's no surprise.

"Going?"

 

[Pete in Panama]

As far as the science goes, the controversy about the basic process and its consequences is over. Only a few eccentric and contrarian scientists still dispute that...

Right, same story we've heard before. There is no controversy except from bad people and all the good people agree w/ you.

 

[sayak83]

Zero controversy except from bad people.

Cheers

Correct ..and these bad people are misleading the ordinary folks.

 

[sayak83]

So you're ignoring the scientists who don't agree? Like, I'd say we got a consensus of virtually all scientists that the melting point of lead is 327.5C. I've never heard of any dispute about that. W/ climate I've seen many takes from many people, including on the role of CO2.

However CO2 is not my main focus because I understand that the main thesis of the AGW people is that the earth is 1.5C hotter now than it was in the 1800's and that this increase is man made and extremely unusual. We don't need to agree about CO2 to see if that's supported by the evidence.

You are kidding right? There is a lot of dispute as to how the melting and phase change processes happen. We don't understand it much...far less understood than global warming which is quite easy actually
You do not here about it is because it does not impact political interests.

 

[sayak83]

Appeal to popularity fallacy aside .. while the overwhelming majority of us Science types agree that increased CO2 due to man is contributing to warming, the overall impact and effect is hotly debated.

What is not debated - least not in serious circles - is that current "Not in my back Yard. Dump it in the Ocean" Enviro policy has not only increased CO2 emissions from 22 Billion tons/year to 36 Billion tons/year over the last 25 years .. but, led to huge increases in Ocean Pollution.

and what is not debated .. is that the impacts of man to the Ocean .. are signaling imminent catastrophic impact .. which will happen long before significant parts of Florida start disappearing due to Ocean levels rising.

So then do we find Ocean Pollution ... the fastest running horse in this two horse race to the abyss .. not plastered on the front page every second day .. but on page 85 in the bottom corner of the Sunday Times .. and of course in Publications like "Scientific American" but only nerds like me read that stuff .. not some secret .. or debated reality in serious circles .. and please do try .. would love to have the "which horse running faster" debate .. I beg it .. such is the slam dunk crucifixion of such position. .. which is why no one with any scientific accumen bothers to try .. all just nodding head in agreement at those big round lunch tables at conferences with names like "Bioremediation" .. attended that one in Baltimore some 2 decades back .. SME at your service should you be interested in degrading hydrocarbon contamination in soil and groundwater using innovative remediation technologies.

and on that note .. lets talk Persistant Organic Pollutants (POP) in the Ocean .. starting with mercury levels in Narn whales up north being so high -experts say is near neurological impairment .. or that breast milk of the Innuit women up north is so contaminated with various POP's that would not be allowed no store shelf ... or that nasty Sargassum epidemic in the Carribean .. was 5000 miles long last year .. wonder what that overflowing toilet has in store for us next year. . not in 100 years .. or even 10.

That is what transporting our pollution problems to other nations has got us .. hope you love that T-Shirt from China .. that is what our brilliant plan of offshorring our economy to China over last 40 years has brought us ..

as ZERO .. disagrees with the two primary factors of the CO2 increase mentioned above are 1) Population Growth and 2) Industrialization of non industrialized populations.

Systematic understanding of the impacts of marine, river and estuary pollution has been recently done and a set of policy recommendations have been proposed recently. Water ecosystem pollution is a very serious issue.
Ocean Pollution Poses Risk to Human Health, Report Shows
But that does not mean global warming is not serious as well. It is like comparing AIDS and Cancer. Furthermore they have a common cure....sustainable production and waste treatment systems are needed to solve both.

 

[Heyo]

So you're ignoring the scientists who don't agree?

No, in fact, I have a study that doesn't agree to discuss: 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C - Nature Climate Change

However CO2 is not my main focus because I understand that the main thesis of the AGW people is that the earth is 1.5C hotter now than it was in the 1800's and that this increase is man made and extremely unusual. We don't need to agree about CO2 to see if that's supported by the evidence.

So, how much must a study diverge from the 1.5° C number, that you call it in disagreement with the official numbers? Is 0.2° deviation enough to be seen as radical?
I don't see a general disagreement, as the IPCC numbers of 1.5° ± 0.1° and 1.7° ± 0.1° still touch in their confidence level.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Correct ..and these bad people are misleading the ordinary folks.

Please forgive my additional post, but I just wanted us to be clear that our difference was that I see scientific issues being a matter of observation and analysis, and you see the "science" as being a matter of your side being right and any divergence from the orthodoxy as being from bad people.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You are kidding right? There is a lot of dispute as to how the melting and phase change processes happen. We don't understand it much...far less understood than global warming which is quite easy actually
You do not here about it is because it does not impact political interests.

Interesting, this post seems to be so far removed from your previous posts and I'm at a loss to understand your position. What I'm getting from you now is that you don't see a controversy on climate but you do see a scientific controversy over the melting point of lead. That doesn't sound right at all.

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, in fact, I have a study that doesn't agree to discuss: 300 years of sclerosponge thermometry shows global warming has exceeded 1.5 °C - Nature Climate Change

So, how much must a study diverge from the 1.5° C number, that you call it in disagreement with the official numbers? Is 0.2° deviation enough to be seen as radical?
I don't see a general disagreement, as the IPCC numbers of 1.5° ± 0.1° and 1.7° ± 0.1° still touch in their confidence level.

My position is that from my vantage point I'm hearing some saying that the earth has warmed by 1.5C over the past one or two centuries because of the greenhouse effect of human activity. That statement is impossible and preposterous and I can show you why it's rediculous if you're interested.

 

[sayak83]

Please forgive my additional post, but I just wanted us to be clear that our difference was that I see scientific issues being a matter of observation and analysis, and you see the "science" as being a matter of your side being right and any divergence from the orthodoxy as being from bad people.

When a very small minority of people choose to disseminate fake information that flatly contradict the crystal clear observations and analysis of the truly overwhelming majority of scientists for the express purpose of misleading public and policy...then yes, these are a bunch of corrupt and immoral PPL with their own agenda.

 

[sayak83]

My position is that from my vantage point I'm hearing some saying that the earth has warmed by 1.5C over the past one or two centuries because of the greenhouse effect of human activity. That statement is impossible and preposterous and I can show you why it's rediculous if you're interested.

Try.

 

[sayak83]

Interesting, this post seems to be so far removed from your previous posts and I'm at a loss to understand your position. What I'm getting from you now is that you don't see a controversy on climate but you do see a scientific controversy over the melting point of lead. That doesn't sound right at all.

There is significant lack of scientific consensus on the melting process and how it happens. We do not have good predictive models for melting or boiling of most substances. Our climate models are far more accurate as the physics is much simpler. So yes, climate change is far well understood than melting of ice or melting of lead

 

[wellwisher]

One problem with the current consensus of thinking, is as technology improves, how we see the universe and earth will evolve. In the 1970's only about 60% of scientists saw global warming, with the rest either seeing global cooling or no change. How come the consensus back then did not see the obvious trend, that the current consensus of science, feeds us as self evident to anyone? One is called delusional if you cannot see, while being a layman.

Can this appearance of enhanced global warming be attributed to changes in technology, seeing more data, than normalized changes in temperature based on 1880 technology? Below is consensus data about global temperature rise from 1880 up to 2018; NOAA. The blue line is the average 20th century temperature and intersects the graph at about 1976.

I went to the NOAA's web site to look at their history of weather satellite launches to see if there was any correlation between technology improvements and the apparent amplified temperature increase, after that, being due to more global data coverage, due to any Satellite. History of NOAA Satellites

NOAA 1-5 (ITOS A, D, F, G, H)​

1970 - 1979

NOAA 1–5 were a series of reconfigured sun-synchronous ITOS (Improved TIROS Operational Satellite) satellites with improved meteorological sensors that were launched between 1970 and 1976 and operated by NOAA. These satellites were the first to rely solely on radiometric imaging to obtain cloud cover data, and were also able to supply global atmospheric temperature soundings and very high resolution infrared cloud cover data for specified areas. They also aimed to obtain global solar-proton flux data.

Has a study even been done, that uses only 1890 mercury thermometer technology and the 1880 global sensor placement, so we can compare apples to apples, and not inflate temperature results due to extreme technology improvement that allows a drastic increase in area of temperature coverage not possible from 1880-1970?

Such a technology magic trick would be a perfect scam, since everyone in science could truthfully analyze the latest data, and since no apples to apples experiments; 1880 to 2023, have been done, and will not be done; I suggested it 10 years ago, the scam will appear to be a done deal. Magic tricks only need the correct angle to see the hidden wires; better global coverage technology.

For example, the Hubble Telescope, that was installed in space in 1990, expanded what we know of space. If we had to revert back to just what we could see, before Hubble, any new Cosmology and Physics theory due to Hubble, may not be supported in we had to only use just the hard data we could see with the older tech.

This topic is about human behavior; internet, where magic tricks make money and critical thinking is substituted for the safety and prestige of the consensus herd. Let us see if the science consensus will run the retro experiment in 2024?

 

[Sargonski]

-and as stated in my previous post, the role of CO2 may not be relevant. Another thought, is that a case where something is "not debated" may be a case where none take it seriously.

and your statement in previous post is unqualified and wrong. CO2 is relevant .. to the gas equation of our atmosphere for example. Whether this is relevance is a significant contribution to the overall heat equation is a separate question .. in which you have also failed but as stated .. the question is separate .. as stated in my previous post.

"Not taken seriously in serious circles" indeed is an example of "Not Debated" --- the Significance question highly debated .. the relevance question "Not debated" .. you are conflating these two questions.

but I will go further than "relevant" and claim that "Significance" in certain respects .. the increase in CO2 is significant w - respect to mans contribution to that value - that this increase in CO2 concentrations is attributable to man 'which is significant" and that the increase itself is significant.. going from something like 100 ppm to 400 ppm -- in such a short period of time .. is a significant increase .. the significance telling us something about activities of man on our system ..

What it doesn't tell us .. is the the magnitude of the effect in the 1) overall heat equation -- we can say the effect itself is significant - that there is a significant effect to the overall the heat equation - but the magnitude of the effect of this change is not known. We could postulate that the size of animals will become bigger .. like the last time when CO2 levels were this high over long periods of time .. how fast and how much impact this will have is anyone's guess.

What we don't need to guess about is Ocean Pollution - those large Monsters have already formed .. the activities of man "Significant" and the effects readily observable and significant .. such as the 5000 mile long Monster that formed in the Atlantic-Carribean last year .. and other such anomalies happening all over

We can measure poison levels in the Patient - Mercury one of the main Poisons being dumped into the Oceans by the unindistrialized Masses .. China and India and Asia in general included in this mess.

Off the Coast of North America .. Mercury levels in Tuna have been decreasing over the last 30 years - cause we don't dump that stuff into the Ocean. Off the Coast of Hawaii .. Mercury levels are increasing -- and we know why -- smokestacks in Asia .. traveling some 3000 miles

We know where the Sargassum monster above came from too .. dumping of Sewage and Fertilizer Run off -- Brazil being the biggest culprit .. Mexico is bad USA not off the hook but to a lesser degree. Bacteria consume the nitrogen but use up the Oxygen in the process which creates an oxygen depleted dead zone.. where corral, fish and marine life cannot survive. These zones have increased from 100 to over 500 over the last 30 years. A significan increase .. one the size of the state of New Jersy.

There has long been such a zone in the middle of of the carribean .. the circulation kind of like a toilet .. all the stuff being pulled into the vortex and degraded .. been there for 100's of years .. the outsides of the circle known as the redox front are highly active zones.

Unfortunately -- we are feeding too much into the Toilet .. and it is now over-flowing in regular burps .. this disgusting stinkweed called Sargassum which grows in these anaerobic zones .. is now all over most beaches in the Carribean and Florida. Florida does not have to wait 100 years for Ocean to submerge it .. this is happening right now .. and the effect massivly significant. Witnessed the Monster up close while in Mexico over the past 10 days . this was in the off season .. the stuff at its minimum puke cycle.

The Ocean is not a garbage can .. and we are reaching capacity of the garburator to deal with all the stuff we putting in there .. the amount of this stuff increasing due Western Envio Policy .. "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean"

You don't like the Keystone .. cause it looks ugly and carries dirty oil .. great, but if you don't get that clean environmentally friendly crude oil from the Keystone. you have to get it from somewhere else .. "Nigeria - Venezuela" a supplie that is not clean or environmentally friendly in any aspect .. the worst being industrialization of non industrialized populations .. the number 1 contribution to the increase in CO2 from 22 billion tpy to 36 Billion TPY.

we need to be feeding these people - people also who are responsible for the other big CO2 factor which is population growth. Populations with food security are decreasing in population .. not increasing like those without. We need to put a cabbage in the hands of these families once a week .. not a Refinery in their back Yard .. or an industrial factory and smokestack that would not be allowed in "civilized nation"

Transferring our pollution problems to other nations is the main lipstick on a Pig solution for the western Nation .. "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean"

 

[Heyo]

My position is that from my vantage point I'm hearing some saying that the earth has warmed by 1.5C over the past one or two centuries because of the greenhouse effect of human activity. That statement is impossible and preposterous and I can show you why it's rediculous if you're interested.

I'm not.
You are not a scientist, let alone an active climate scientist. Your opinion is, sorry to say, worthless.

But if you are saying that there are serious scientists, who have published studies that disagree with a 1.5° C warming, the effect of CO2 on warming, the part humans have in the warming, and that there are more than the usual crackpots, it will be easy to convince me. Just post links to the studies.
If there are no such studies, I maintain my position that there is a scientific consensus about AGW. (And I have expert backup, as, iirc, @sayak83 is active in climate science.)

 

[Sargonski]

Systematic understanding of the impacts of marine, river and estuary pollution has been recently done and a set of policy recommendations have been proposed recently. Water ecosystem pollution is a very serious issue.
Ocean Pollution Poses Risk to Human Health, Report Shows
But that does not mean global warming is not serious as well. It is like comparing AIDS and Cancer. Furthermore they have a common cure....sustainable production and waste treatment systems are needed to solve both.

"Water policy recommendations have been proposed recently. Water ecosystem pollution is a very serious issue"

I can't believe you just stated this nonsensical non answer to the problems stated. Water Policy recomendations due to water exosystem pollution being a very serious issue was the case in the 1970's and every decade since then.

What part of "Those Policies did the exact opposite of what was intended and/or did not address the main factors contributing to both CO2 and Ocean pollution" did you not understand ..

Your claim that that the comparison is like cancer to aids is nonsensical deflection down some unqualified rabbit hole .. The lipstick on a pig CO2 Policy is directly related to the increase in Ocean Pollution .. having nothing to do the difference between cancer and aids.

I did not say warming was not a serious risk -- so why are you pretending otherwise .. lacking the ability to address the fact that Ocean Pollution is also a risk .. but one not being taken seriously like "global warming" ?

what part of "Not in my back yard - Dump it in the Ocean" --- is our environmental policy --- are you having trouble accepting and coming to grips with ? a policy which seeks to increase both CO2 and Ocean Pollution at the same time.

 

[Pete in Panama]

There is significant lack of scientific consensus on the melting process and how it happens. We do not have good predictive models for melting or boiling of most substances. Our climate models are far more accurate as the physics is much simpler...

Huh. If I put a thermometer and a chunk of lead over a fire, I'd bet (my own money) the lead would melt with an observed temp. within a degree of 327.5C. What kind of climate prediction we got? Sure, you could say any prediction I suggested would be just "weather" and not climate, while any daily high above some average is tooted as proof of AGW.

That's politics. I'm into observation and analysis, not endless words.

 

[Pete in Panama]

One problem with the current consensus of thinking, is as technology improves, how we see the universe and earth will evolve. In the 1970's only about 60% of scientists saw global warming, with the rest either seeing global cooling or no change. How come the consensus back then did not see the obvious trend, that the current consensus of science, feeds us as self evident to anyone? One is called delusional if you cannot see, while being a layman.

Can this appearance of enhanced global warming be attributed to changes in technology, seeing more data, than normalized changes in temperature based on 1880 technology? Below is consensus data about global temperature rise from 1880 up to 2018; NOAA. The blue line is the average 20th century temperature and intersects the graph at about 1976.

I went to the NOAA's web site to look at their history of weather satellite launches to see if there was any correlation between technology improvements and the apparent amplified temperature increase, after that, being due to more global data coverage, due to any Satellite. History of NOAA Satellites



Has a study even been done, that uses only 1890 mercury thermometer technology and the 1880 global sensor placement, so we can compare apples to apples, and not inflate temperature results due to extreme technology improvement that allows a drastic increase in area of temperature coverage not possible from 1880-1970?

Such a technology magic trick would be a perfect scam, since everyone in science could truthfully analyze the latest data, and since no apples to apples experiments; 1880 to 2023, have been done, and will not be done; I suggested it 10 years ago, the scam will appear to be a done deal. Magic tricks only need the correct angle to see the hidden wires; better global coverage technology.

For example, the Hubble Telescope, that was installed in space in 1990, expanded what we know of space. If we had to revert back to just what we could see, before Hubble, any new Cosmology and Physics theory due to Hubble, may not be supported in we had to only use just the hard data we could see with the older tech.

This topic is about human behavior; internet, where magic tricks make money and critical thinking is substituted for the safety and prestige of the consensus herd. Let us see if the science consensus will run the retro experiment in 2024?

Sounds like you're running into the same problem I got. We're hearing lots of folks saying their statements are "scientific", while they lack the minimum scientific rigor.