deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Until it is affordable for people to live close to where they work without having to pay most of their income to landlords/money lenders, or for alternate fuel sources to become affordable, there really isn't any hope for this to turnaround either. The people currently profiting from the activities that contribute the most to global warming aren't going to give it up without a fight.

People could easily afford to live closer to where they work if they lowered their standards in regards to house-size, backyards, etc., or we could raise taxes and build better public transit. Neither of those things appeal to most North Americans so here we are.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People could easily afford to live closer to where they work if they lowered their standards in regards to house-size, backyards, etc., or we could raise taxes and build better public transit. Neither of those things appeal to most North Americans so here we are.

Some people could in some cities maybe.

Have you seen what $250k or $800/month gets you in the downtown core of most large North American cities these days? Nothing that you would want to sleep in without a baseball bat next to your bed. That isn't a standard that is easily negotiable.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Folks can pile on, it doesn't bother me. Well maybe a little. I don't like when people assume #### right away if you don't tow the party line 100%. I grew up in Alberta as well, but I live in CA. I'm a great believer in taking care of the earth and doing your own individual part. I do think emissions need to come down on a global scale, no question. I love that CA takes this seriously (although obviously there is much to do still).

I don't pretend to know all the facts, but again, looking back on the geologic time scale, ice-ages have come and gone and humans have had zero to do with it. I question whether or not the earth is changing whether we like it or not. If someone turned off the CO2 switch tomorrow, would that change anything at all? I think the earth is going to warm, the sea will rise, and we will be helpless.



Well more broadly speaking, we are still in an ice-age, but in a interglacial period.

This might read as an advertisement for Tesla, but there is very interesting information regarding energy, energy storage, climate change, etc. Warning: its quite a long read.
http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-te...your-life.html

[CroFlames]

Looks cool, I'll read that later.

I love Tesla cars. You see quite a few of them around these parts. Very sleek looking.

[Thor]

The best go to for all your questions or doubts about man made climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

another great resource:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

and this great quick summary on Bill Moyers site:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eig...al-scientists/

7. Yes, It’s Been Warm Before

Katharine Hayhoe
Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech

Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech, says that on three occasions she came down with food poisoning after eating at a certain chain restaurant. For some reason, she tried the chain again, and once again suffered from the exact same stomach pains the next day. She assumed that she was dealing with another bout of food poisoning, but it didn’t go away. Finally, after two weeks, she discovered that she was actually pregnant — it was morning sickness.

“Just because something happened before for one reason, doesn’t mean that when it happens again it’s for the same reason,” says Hayhoe in response to a claim, popularized by “Lord” Monckton, that the fastest warming ever recorded occurred in central England in the 17th century. This, says Monckton, was before the industrial revolution began, so “it cannot have been our fault.”

“Our planet is running a fever,” says Hayhoe, “and I can think of six or seven reasons why it could be running hot. As a scientist, you don’t just jump to conclusions. You do the tests. You say, ‘OK, could it be a natural cycle this time? Could it be the sun? Could it be volcanoes? Could it be orbital cycles and ice ages?’ We run those tests and we see if it could be any of those things that caused the climate to change naturally in the past. And in this case, we’ve run those tests and the answer to all those questions is, ‘no.’ In fact, if our temperature were controlled by natural causes right now, we’d be getting cooler, not warmer.”

Hayhoe also notes Monckton’s reliance on temperatures in Central England during odd ranges of dates, like 1663-1762. “It’s cherry-picking in both space and time,” she says. “If you’re going to look at global climate change, you have to look at global temperatures. When it’s hot in one place, it’s cold in another. And when you see weird dates, you should be suspicious — there has to be a reason why someone chose those odd dates. Climate scientists tend to use nice round numbers like 1800 or 1900.”

[Fuzz]

there has to be a reason why someone chose those odd dates. Climate scientists tend to use nice round numbers like 1800 or 1900.”

That seams to be rather odd advice. Most datasets don't start no nice round numbers. Typically when scientists choose a dataset, they don't pick an arbitrary round number. They pick the start of the data set. So if you see 1979, it's probably because that's when the satellite record started. If you see 1958 for CO2 it's probably because that's when the CO2 record at Mauna Loa started.

Even their example

Central England during odd ranges of dates, like 1663-1762.

sounds like the start of the CET temperature record for a 100 year period. It started in 1659, but maybe the first few years were bad data, or they wanted a 5 year running average.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Thor

The best go to for all your questions or doubts about man made climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

another great resource:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

and this great quick summary on Bill Moyers site:

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eig...al-scientists/

I appreciate you not attacking me for not having the popular opinion.

I think that speaks to one's level of intellect.

[rubecube]

This ought to go over well here.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/bill-...ource=vicefbca

Everyone's childhood science hero, Bill Nye The Science Guy, is currently in Alberta working on a climate change documentary. And not surprisingly, when Nye went to the tar sands, he thought it was a "depressive" sight.

He added that the hope for the environmental future in Canada could lie in the federal election—although Nye did not endorse any specific party. But he did point out that new views on the environment is what would be most helpful to address these issues, while remaining critical of the Harper government.

"Everybody says they feel like the tipping point's been reached. Everyone we speak with, where enough is enough kind of thing," he said. "But then you have people that are in denial of climate change, who justify all of this extraordinary exploitation to the environment."

"The government in Canada is currently being influenced by the fossil-fuel industry," Nye had told VICE. "Stephen Harper is a controversial guy in the science community because [of] the policies, especially in Western Canada."

[CroFlames]

Bill Nye makes a living talking about climate change. It's obligatory to talk down the 'tar' sands.

[troutman]

Santorum cites flawed climate change figure, and misquotes it

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...figure-and-mi/

"I’m not alone," Santorum said on Maher’s Aug. 28 HBO show. "The most recent survey of climate scientists said about 57 percent don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2."

Santorum, pressed by an incredulous Maher, repeated the claim: "There was a survey done of 1,800 scientists, and 57 percent said they don’t buy off on the idea that CO2 is the knob that’s turning the climate. There’s hundreds of reasons the climate’s changed."

The IPCC has said it is "extremely likely" (meaning a 95 percent confidence level) that humans are causing climate change. The IPCC also said it is "very likely" (meaning a 90 percent confidence level) that greenhouses gases are the driver.

Santorum restated IPCC points wrong. They never said 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2.
In fact, no one has ever made that statement, according to Leiserowitz.

"There are several other greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, as a amplifier. CO2 is the most important of these and others, but no one to my knowledge has ever claimed that CO2 caused 95 percent of the warming," he said.

"You don't get anywhere near 57 percent when surveying the broad earth science community, and you get very close to full consensus when you ask the experts in climate science," said Peter Doran, a professor of earth science at Louisiana State University.

National Science Board member James Powell surveyed what’s actually published in scientific journals, finding that the consensus in the literature is about 99.9 percent. And multiple independent studies have "asked scientists directly" and found consensus levels of around 97 percent, said William Anderegg, who studies climate change at Princeton University.

"Those studies were rigorously peer-reviewed and thus should be considered more credible than a blog post that misreads an institute report," he said.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This ought to go over well here.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/bill-...ource=vicefbca

Don't real scientists make fun of him?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Don't real scientists make fun of him?

No.

He was a mechanical engineer at Boeing.

He is director of the Planetary Society.

A summary of his scientific work here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Bill Nye makes a living talking about climate change. It's obligatory to talk down the 'tar' sands.

So are you saying he's wrong?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Don't real scientists make fun of him?

Nope. Actually one of the most respected and revered members of the scientific community.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So are you saying he's wrong?

Nope. Petroleum development is absolutely a contributing factor to global warming.

Do I think there are bigger fish to fry (China, USA)? Yes.

[troutman]

5 Trillion Tons of Ice Lost Since 2002

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ince_1992.html

The sheer amount of land ice being lost every year is immediate, here, now. And the numbers are staggering: Using data from the GRACE satellites launched in 2002, scientists measured that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing 134 billion metric tons per year, and Greenland is losing 287 billion tons per year.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Nope. Petroleum development is absolutely a contributing factor to global warming.

Do I think there are bigger fish to fry (China, USA)? Yes.

Yes but what is Canada doing? This isn't about who pollutes more, all nations need to get onboard here.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Yes but what is Canada doing? This isn't about who pollutes more, all nations need to get onboard here.

The reality is that if Canada cut it's emissions in HALF, it would only be 1% of the global problem. That's all of Canada mind you, not just the oil sands. Not enough to slow or reverse the climate problem. The oil sands aren't even Canada's biggest contributor. If Canada ceased to produce CO2 altogether, the global result is basically the same. Catastrophic climate change.

If the EU, the USA & China cut their emissions in half, then we are talking.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The reality is that if Canada cut it's emissions in HALF, it would only be 1% of the global problem. That's all of Canada mind you, not just the oil sands. Not enough to slow or reverse the climate problem. The oil sands aren't even Canada's biggest contributor. If Canada ceased to produce CO2 altogether, the global result is basically the same. Catastrophic climate change.

If the EU, the USA & China cut their emissions in half, then we are talking.

The point is that everyone needs to stop or cut significantly. Yes, other nations are much larger contributors, but it doesn't matter. Why do we have to wait for them to do something before we do our part, however small it may be?

[Codes]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Don't real scientists make fun of him?

No.

We appreciate that he has found a way to engage the general public in a meaningful way. Very well respected.

EDIT: Hadn't refreshed the thread before posting, so I'm late to the party.