Climate Change and AGW - 1 of 2
Let's start with a review of basic climate science
The climate changes. It always changes. It changes a lot over long periods of time, thanks to natural causes and cycles. We've had ice ages and periods of warmer temperatures.
Humans were not around during the other times of high temperatures and CO2.
Some cycles take tens, or hundreds of thousands of years or longer. The Milancovitch Cycle is caused by things like Venus and Jupiter tugging on Earth's orbit. The Earth is on a tilted axis and has a wobble.
These are natural, humans aren't changing these cycles.
The Sun plays a role, with solar activity and irradiance. The atmosphere and the oceans all play their part.
Humans have nothing to do with these natural cycles.
... I'm going to stop here for a moment
I am wondering what you are thinking right now. If you are firm on your opinion. If you know me and my position on this topic, my political beliefs, education, industry, religious affiliation. When you saw the headline, maybe you thought "Yes exactly" or "Stop picking on us". Either way I hope you just keep reading with an open mind.
Review of climate science terms
Climate describes long-term changes and trends. Weather describes more of the day to day changes at a given time and place.
The term global warming never became climate change. Both always were, and still are, two separate scientific terms. They are typically discussed together.
Global warming describes the rise in Earth's overall temperature, land and sea. Climate change describes the change of climate over a period of time, the results of a warming or cooling planet.
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming (human-caused).
How did you do? If you knew every detail and all of the basic terms so far (on this topic Milancovitch Cycle is basic), then so far, you knew more than most. If you did not, then how firm is your opinion on AGW... 20%?.. 80?.. Why?
Is global warming real?
You already know what I'm going to say. It's not warming, or it's CO2 or human activity, or the models are wrong or something with Gore and Musk. Or there is more research that needs to be done (always true). Or you already know what I'm going to say, because you mostly agree with the scientific consensus, maybe also study this topic, or you are a scientist involved in the peer review process.
If you did not know my view on this topic, is my perceived bias showing yet? If it just happened, was it when I said I happen to agree with the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming?
It is likely that if you lean left, you accept anthropogenic global warming (AGW). If you lean right, you may be less likely to accept AGW - less likely to believe it is important, or that it is happening, or that human activity is the leading cause.
Left and Right
Two people can have a different opinion, both can be 100% biased, yet one of those people can still be completely correct. The correct person would just happen to be coincidentally correct.
I'm an Independent voter that's voted for both parties, but some pure Conservatives have accepted AGW and support climate change mitigation. Just over a decade ago, the left and right were together on this issue (although it didn't last long), remember Newt's commercial with Pelosi about global warming?
Today, support from Republicans is actually growing, for important reasons, including investments, jobs and national security. Wall Street, investment banks, wind powered states like TX, OK and IA and dozens of Republican members of Congress (Climate Solutions Caucus). Every official report released by departments in the Trump administration, including the latest from the US Military, cite climate change as one of the most important issues - national security included.
Even small government Libertarians are recognizing that some of the lobbyist groups are too supportive of fossil fuels, their subsidies and climate change misinformation. Compared to renewable subsidies, fossil fuels get 5 times more of our tax dollars, and have been government-funded for 100 years. Fossil fuels are the definition of big, government-funded utilities with lots of well-funded politicians. We also have basic rights to clean air and water, for neighbors (private or corporate) to respect our land. Cheaper electric bills, more jobs, off-grid living options, and the fact that accepting AGW and supporting renewables won't turn someone liberal - there is a lot to like.
There are a lot of people on the right that happen to agree, on this issue, with those on the left. It's not a completely horrible thing.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Is the Earth warming? Yes, there's no denying that. Around 90% of the Earth's heat is trapped in the oceans. We can't talk about global temperatures without including ocean temperatures. Studies that omit this data can not discount AGW. Yes, the Earth is warming. Are you thinking "So what? It's not humans anyway."
Climate science versus politics
Where are you now on the topics of global warming and climate change?
> I accept the scientific consensus on AGW and/or want to take an objective look at the science: Climate Change and AGW - Part 2 of 2
> I still believe AGW is a hoax and/or liberal scientists made it up: Continue reading
Hypocrites and moneymakers
I accept that I, and likely everyone reading this, that we are all hypocrites in some way. It's true, I own it, despite living consciously when considering climate change. I accept that fossil fuels built this country. I accept that nearly everyone that works in the fossil fuel industry is working to support their families and that they are not responsible (I use fossil fuels and there is a market). The fossil fuel industry is not the villain. There have been a few people of great power over the years (Shell's study, Exxon's study, the lawsuits). We can all still be thankful for the benefits.
At the end of the day, perceived or actual hypocrisy does not mean the science is wrong.
Liberal climate conspiracy
If you do not accept AGW because of Al Gore, or because you believe it's a global conspiracy, try to put that aside for a moment, and take an objective look at the scientific method. Consider what would NEED to happen for this conspiracy to be true.
It would had to have started early in the 1800s with Fourier, then after Tyndall continued his research. Ever since then, it has been tested by scientists all over the world. Nobel Prize scientist Arrhenius continued in the early 1900s, and advanced by Hulburt. Then, the fossil fuel industry studied this extensively since the 1950's. Scientists have since produced well over 10,000 peer reviewed studies. Testing and testing and submitting for peer review.
For a conspiracy, it means the data collected would have to be wrong, even though it is verified in many ways, through redundancies and comparisons to outside sources. The data would need to be falsified (Climategate debunked), even though it's collected from multiple sources, organizations from around the world and independent researchers. Then studies presented for peer review would have to have the involvement of all scientists, independent researchers and scientific bodies, so that when they spot errors or omissions, they would purposefully not correct them.
Organizations like NASA or the IPCC or the Science Counsel of Japan would review the studies, spot the flaws, then accept them anyway. They would all have to keep quiet, tens of thousands of co-conspirators. Except, none of this work is happening behind the scenes like some government task force or the F35 fighter jet program - this is all open source, public and scrutinized.
Many would want nothing more than to prove these scientists wrong. There are plenty of scientists that would want to accept the Nobel Prize for disproving AGW, and there are plenty of groups that are incentivized to help them. Even harder to have a global conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people with so many people looking to prove them wrong.
Summary
Where are you now on the topics of global warming and climate change? Do you have the same opinion compared to when you started?
> I accept the scientific consensus on AGW and/or want to take an objective look at the science: Climate Change and AGW - Part 2 of 2
> I still believe AGW is mostly a hoax, Al Gore is in on it and/or people made this up so companies and investors can make money, and/or I believe it goes against Libertarianism: Part 1 and a half of 2 (coming soon)
About the author
Tom DeRosa is a flawed human being that uses fossil fuels and accepts that he is not free from hypocrisy, that fossil fuels helped build the world, that nearly everyone in that field is also simply working to support their families and serve a market.
.
Climate and Water Entrepreneur; Best-selling Climate Author
5yTom - I appreciate the discussion and the thoughtfulness you put into it. It's a hot-button issue for many people (myself included), and there certainly needs to be much more discussion about it. I think the section under "climate science and politics" is at the crux of the climate divide. You've given people 2 choices - to either accept the consensus with an objective mind or you believe it's a hoax - and to me, that's the problem. Instead of 2 choices, there are a thousand shades of gray. This is my one big issue with all of Al Gore and the current climate change rhetoric: he split us into believers or non-believers (or deniers, as they're called). Can't people not believe some parts of it without it being a hoax? Another choice could be: I believe the earth is warming (because of real data); I believe CO2 levels are rising (because of real data); and I believe man has had SOME impact on these 2 things (but I don't know how much because it can't be proven with actual science); any science that tries to predict the future using predictive models is, by definition, conjecture and not true science (because nothing can be proven scientifically);any natural disaster that's supposed to be happening 30 years in the future is even more extreme conjecture (and REALLY can't be proven); and that basing policy and trillions in expenditures on stuff that literally can't be proven is more science fiction than science. Or, another choice could be: I accept that there's some real science, I accept there's some scientific speculation, but the speculation is done by experts so I trust them, and because of that I believe that manmade climate change is extremely important. Or...you get my point. This is NOT a binary issue, and I'd like to see us quit acting as if it is. The world isn't made up of believers and non-believers. I, for one, would appreciate an acknowledgement of the many different ways there are to look at this issue.
Climate and Water Entrepreneur; Best-selling Climate Author
5yEM Propagation Specialist, Radar Engineer, Pilot, Looking for Work
5yClimate change is "Real" It happens with or without tailpipes. Pollution is very real and causes millions health problems and even death. However, in respect of the scientific method, trying to pander a narrative as to the cause of climate change in order to profiteer off of that narrative is not only wrong but it is murderous. The climate is changing and it is very soon going to swing back the other way(it already has). What people should be aware of is the implications this will have on society and agriculture and even life itself. If you look at the data and the ice core studies, Co2, which is the main talking point of the Gore crowd, has consistently lagged a warming period and not been the cause. Could we have an impact on how severe the natural climate cycle peaks? The answer is yes......however, no amount of profiteering is going to change that at this point in the cycle. We are too late. Instead, governments should be pouring resources and tax dollars into creating sustainable agriculture that is impervious to the onslaught of the Eddy Minimum of which we are now entering. The temperatures are going to plummet due to a "Grand Solar Minimum" and the impacts on the worlds food supply should be our primary concern at this point. Decentralizing the power grid, building infrastructure to navigate cold, icy, and snowy conditions, and coming up with economic strategies that will sustain nations through the Eddy Minimum and subsequent ice age that we are "Now" just entering. Otherwise Al Gore and the like who are busy pushing half truths to make a profit will go down in human history as being responsible for the largest loss of human life ever before recorded. Yes we need to create clean and renewable solutions for energy, food, shelter, and water. We need to do this in order to eliminate our pollution which harms not only us but the entire biosphere. I have always been an advocate for clean tech, However, I cannot keep quiet while misinformation is spread and the real concern is ignored. The Sun (Sol) is the single source of heat in our solar system. When it changes.....every planet in the heliosphere changes. The mechanics of our magnetosphere changes, the cosmic radiation reaching the surface of earth changes. UV radiation increases, the jet-stream and weather systems change. These changes have an affect on storms, temperatures, seismic activity, volcanic activity, the tilt/wobble of the earth and so on. Yet why is it acceptable to keep everyone blindfolded and focused on a narrative that is only 1/1000th of the cause in order to profit off of it? Short answer is ......it's not.