What will it take to convince you of climate change?

[Brokenlink]

I've always been a big believer that man has interrupted the natural cycle of climate changes however I don't see how this fire can be use as evidence to support the theory in any way.
California summer droughts are nothing new and the right combination of strong wind and an unfortunate spark could have that same outcome any late summer for the past 50 years.

So I was trying to explain s0ome of this last night. Yes, you are correct that it could happen any years. However, after several years of drought, you have a tinder box up in those hills. Then we get a really good rain year and everything grows. So we now have even more fuel in the hills. Then it gets dry (like every year) and hell breaks loose.

So I agree that in California this could happen any year. But I contend that the drought and El Nino year we had exacerbated conditions.

 

[Gabe]

I've always been a big believer that man has interrupted the natural cycle of climate changes however I don't see how this fire can be use as evidence to support the theory in any way.
California summer droughts are nothing new and the right combination of strong wind and an unfortunate spark could have that same outcome any late summer for the past 50 years.

True, except conditions exacerbated by CC like beetle infestations, higher temperatures and drought have made fire season worse, longer and more intense over those 50 years.

http://time.com/4838989/california-drought-wildfire-fire-season/

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/calif...asons-and-climate-change-will-make-both-worse

 

[Gabe]

So I was trying to explain s0ome of this last night. Yes, you are correct that it could happen any years. However, after several years of drought, you have a tinder box up in those hills. Then we get a really good rain year and everything grows. So we now have even more fuel in the hills. Then it gets dry (like every year) and hell breaks loose.

So I agree that in California this could happen any year. But I contend that the drought and El Nino year we had exacerbated conditions.

LOL we both used the word "exacerbated." I had to spell-check it.

 

[Brokenlink]

LOL we both used the word "exacerbated." I had to spell-check it.

I came.arty

 

[bruceflinch]

LOL we both used the word "exacerbated." I had to spell-check it.

I came.arty

Get a room you two!

 

[brichter]

In other words, we can be better prepared for these events, or we can clean up after them. What would you prefer?

Wishful thinking. No amount of prep can get us to the point where we won't be cleaning up after them.

 

[brichter]

True, except conditions exacerbated by CC like beetle infestations, higher temperatures and drought have made fire season worse, longer and more intense over those 50 years.

http://time.com/4838989/california-drought-wildfire-fire-season/

https://www.kcet.org/redefine/calif...asons-and-climate-change-will-make-both-worse

You're forgetting that we also have over 8 decades of history not allowing the natural fire cycle to maintain our forests, and we are reaping the benefits of this now. We have created sick forests, and we are only now starting to change the policies that led us here, and it's damn sure not going to be fixed in a couple of years.

 

[Brokenlink]

Wishful thinking. No amount of prep can get us to the point where we won't be cleaning up after them.

I certainly have no false beliefs that we can prevent these events from happening (and I lump hurricanes and other CC related events). However, with proper planning, we can be ready for these events.

It's like automobile safety. No amount of safety planning is going to prevent auto accidents. But that seatbelt and airbags sure makes it easier to survive one.

 

[scootergmc]

You're forgetting that we also have over 8 decades of history not allowing the natural fire cycle to maintain our forests, and we are reaping the benefits of this now. We have created sick forests, and we are only now starting to change the policies that led us here, and it's damn sure not going to be fixed in a couple of years.

Stop, just stop. This is no time for an injection of logic. This has everything to do with the climate, beetles, drought, temps, etc.... There will be no talk of .gov's attempt to do what's best for the forests in the name of the environment.

We've got our cake, let's eat it too...

 

[Bowling4Bikes]

We've got our cake, let's eat it too...

isn't that the very argument as to how humans are pumping massive amounts of toxins and greenhouse gases into the climate yet ignoring the effects?

 

[clutchslip]

LULZ!

I like the cut of your jib, sailor.

I started this thread not to debate climate change, but to see if the CC deniers had the capacity to change their views. Some do, and some don't. I think the why of what people believe is much more interesting and informative than the what itself. Here on BARF there are a lot of older dudes who feel they've worked hard and want to enjoy the rest of their lives without being told what to do or pay extra fees or taxes for what they think are useless, wasteful programs. Fair enough. There are also dudes who post stuff to make the "other side" pissed off. Again, fair enough. In fact, I'm probably one of those guys.

I love EVs and am a proponent of alternative, renewable energy. I also try to conserve electricity, water, recycle, blah, blah, blah, though I think a lot of that stuff is just posturing. I'm also a proponent of strong federal government and international cooperation, which I think are necessary to either slow/reverse CC as well as prepare for the chaos it is causing and will continue to cause.

At the end of the day, it's all self-interest, isn't it? But believe or not, we're ALL guilty of causing it and therefore partly responsible for fixing the problems.

Oh, so YOU are RIGHT and those who don't agree with you are wrong idiots. Is that about it? You admit to being a communist and yet presented ZERO evidence that your opinion of climate change is correct. Would you like to start over and actually make me give a damn about your opinion with some evidence? Or, like most of this current generation, are you just going to rehash irrational short-time-frame arguments which make little sense when one volcano can black out Europe for weeks with a simple hiccup. Get it or Gore brainwashed?

 

[brichter]

But I contend that the drought and El Nino year we had exacerbated conditions.

Is it your opinion that drought in California and El Nino are both artifacts of climate change?

 

[brichter]

throw in a super bug that's resistant to our meds moving through populations that are weakened by hunger and crammed together in decreasing livable areas.

We don't need all the rest of your conditions for this to happen, it's already occurred several times in history. Think Spanish Flu, Bubonic Plague, etc.

We're primed for another pandemic and it won't necessarily be a resistance to antibiotics that will trigger mass population reduction (although it would raise the effectiveness), it will just be the sheer number of humans on the planet and the speed at which we will spread it globally.

 

[Bowling4Bikes]

Oh, so YOU are RIGHT and those who don't agree with you are wrong idiots. Is that about it? You admit to being a communist and yet presented ZERO evidence that your opinion of climate change is correct. Would you like to start over and actually make me give a damn about your opinion with some evidence? Or, like most of this current generation, are you just going to rehash irrational short-time-frame arguments which make little sense when one volcano can black out Europe for weeks with a simple hiccup. Get it or Gore brainwashed?

I think the question is: would you believe evidence if you were given it?


here's some evidence, appropos to your argument which is essentially "one volcanic hiccup can negate man-made contributions to c02 levels"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

ironically, that Icelandic eruption actually decreased European c02 emissions because it shut down air travel:

Carbon dioxide isn’t a major output of volcanic eruptions. In the case of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, which began erupting in March 2010 and entered an explosive phase in April 2010, one study found that less than 15 percent of the gas given off in the pre-explosive phase was CO2 – the majority was water vapor. For some other volcanoes, the proportion of CO2 is even lower.

Still, that accounted for 150,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 per day at the height of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, according to wire reports. But the European Union’s air travel, which was shut down for days during the eruption, accounts for 3 percent of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, which according to the European Environment Agency was about 4,089 billion tons in 2008. That means air travel in Europe gives off about 340,000 tons of CO2 per day. The shutdown of air travel in much of Europe during the first week of the explosive eruption would have offset, if not greatly outpaced, the CO2 Eyjafjallajokull produced during that time.

----

edit: I refrain from escalating the conversation style. please respond in kind.

 

[clutchslip]

I think the question is: would you believe evidence if you were given it?


here's some evidence, appropos to your argument which is essentially "one volcanic hiccup can negate man-made contributions to c02 levels"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/

ironically, that Icelandic eruption actually decreased European c02 emissions because it shut down air travel:

Carbon dioxide isn’t a major output of volcanic eruptions. In the case of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, which began erupting in March 2010 and entered an explosive phase in April 2010, one study found that less than 15 percent of the gas given off in the pre-explosive phase was CO2 – the majority was water vapor. For some other volcanoes, the proportion of CO2 is even lower.

Still, that accounted for 150,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 per day at the height of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, according to wire reports. But the European Union’s air travel, which was shut down for days during the eruption, accounts for 3 percent of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, which according to the European Environment Agency was about 4,089 billion tons in 2008. That means air travel in Europe gives off about 340,000 tons of CO2 per day. The shutdown of air travel in much of Europe during the first week of the explosive eruption would have offset, if not greatly outpaced, the CO2 Eyjafjallajokull produced during that time.

----

edit: I refrain from escalating the conversation style. please respond in kind.

I will refrain from tearing that thing apart. What is the title of this thread? "Climate Change." Thus my supposition that minor volcano activity has more effect on climate than humans have had for decades and decades and decades stands.

Despite the attempt to skew the information in Al Gore's favor, they could not get around the facts that humans are a spit in a bucket:

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the earth for three years, by as much as 1.6 degrees at the height of its effect, according to USGS.

 

[tuxumino]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Until recently, permafrost was not a major concern of climate scientists, because, as the name suggests, it was soil that stayed permanently frozen. But Arctic permafrost contains 1.8 trillion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as is currently suspended in the Earth’s atmosphere. When it thaws and is released, that carbon may evaporate as methane, which is 34 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas warming blanket as carbon dioxide when judged on the timescale of a century; when judged on the timescale of two decades, it is 86 times as powerful. In other words, we have, trapped in Arctic permafrost, twice as much carbon as is currently wrecking the atmosphere of the planet, all of it scheduled to be released at a date that keeps getting moved up, partially in the form of a gas that multiplies its warming power 86 times over.

 

[Bowling4Bikes]

I will refrain from tearing that thing apart. What is the title of this thread? "Climate Change." Thus my supposition that minor volcano activity has more effect on climate than humans have had for decades and decades and decades stands.

Despite the attempt to skew the information in Al Gore's favor, they could not get around the facts that humans are a spit in a bucket:

The title of this thread is "what will it take to convince you of climate change". I'm fairly certain what the answer to the OP for you is. furthermore, continuously referring to Al Gore does not help your case. It shows you have withdrawn from an intellectual stance and moved firmly to an emotional one in this argument.

scientific consensus is that a major component of climate change is from measurable rising c02 levels. therefore your argument that volcanoes emit way more c02 than man is demonstrably false...please provide data, as you demand from us, to support your supposition.

regardless, you mention pinatubo...here's some more data that you can claim is skewed:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50

quote:

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year.

 

[Gabe]

The title of this thread is "what will it take to convince you of climate change". I'm fairly certain what the answer to the OP for you is. furthermore, continuously referring to Al Gore does not help your case. It shows you have withdrawn from an intellectual stance and moved firmly to an emotional one in this argument.

scientific consensus is that a major component of climate change is from measurable rising c02 levels. therefore your argument that volcanoes emit way more c02 than man is demonstrably false...please provide data, as you demand from us, to support your supposition.

regardless, you mention pinatubo...here's some more data that you can claim is skewed:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50

quote:

Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year.

All this data is meaningless because I'm a communist.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

"how about now"?

In San Diego County, about 100 schools will close early on Tuesday for a second day so students won't be stuck in stifling classrooms.

On Monday, more than a dozen places recorded record-breaking heat. Downtown Los Angeles topped out 24 degrees above normal with a record of 102 for the date, besting the old mark of 98 set in 1965...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Southern-California-facing-dangerous-heat-for-12300921.php

Oh yeah, it's late October.

 

[mrmarklin]

"how about now"?



http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Southern-California-facing-dangerous-heat-for-12300921.php

Oh yeah, it's late October.

On the other hand, here in NoCal, temperatures are normal.