He's said repeatedly that he believes climate change is underway and it's the result of human activity. He just doesn't believe it's possible to address it.

I see.

If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming. — Agree to Disagree

They’re all based on averages. Even anomalies, which you seem to barely understand, are based on averages. You cited an average yourself — for the month of January.

The global average temperature in the 20th century was 57 degrees F. There’s nothing “not actual” about that.

Also, having a huge collection of data points around the world is pointless. You take averages— long term and short term averages— to understand changes (whether positive or negative, which are deviations [“anomalies”] from a certain period’s average). Otherwise it’s simply pointless to look at a globe and say “hey, look at all the blue spots in January!”

Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have.

- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution

As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).

Is your position that we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels and nothing bad will happen? Doesn't that seem a little naive, without even getting into the science? — RogueAI

No, that is not my position.

I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. I am in favor of slowly transitioning away from fossil fuels. This needs to be done at a speed which does not cause large problems.

There are many other important problems that also need our attention (e.g. pollution - not the CO2 kind).

Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons.

Before I give you this list I need to make it clear that I don't/never have worked for any oil company. I have never received any payment or gift/perk from any oil company. I have been a computer programmer for the last 40 years working mostly in the banking industry, but also 13 years in the battery monitoring industry.

Crude oil is very useful for a number of reasons:
- we don't need to chop down an enormous number of trees to use as fuel. Trees are quite slow to regenerate. We want to have lots of trees to hug :grin:
- we don't need to kill whales for oil. Spermaceti from the head cavities of sperm whales and whale oil which is obtained from the blubber of whales :sad:
- 3 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of asphalt to pave roads and parking lots.
- 1 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the manufacturing of lubricants: the greases and fluids that help keep our world running smoothly.
- 15 percent each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of thousands of different items, ranging from makeup to medicine.

These "thousands of different items" include (in no particular order):
- wrapping paper
- mannequins
- ball pits (that children play in)
- artificial leather (don't need to kill so many animals?)
- hard hats
- lotions
- acrylic paint
- hairspray
- dog collars
- fishing rods
- hair color
- lipstick
- manufacture of money
- artificial turf
- kayaks
- sunglasses
- pencils
- drums
- high heels
- styrofoam
- CDs
- porta-potties
- artificial heart valves
- hammocks
- elastic underwear
- balm
- bicycles
- mattresses
- light bulbs
- beer widgets
- microphones
- basketballs
- electric guitars
- photographic film
- cables
- champagne flutes
- christmas lights
- footballs
- ASPIRIN
- football helmets
- toothbrushes
- candles
- baseballs
- dog toys
- etc
- etc
- etc

Of course I have left off the list one of the most important items produced from crude oil
- E-Juice for vaping

How many young people do you know who are willing to give up vaping to reduce global-warming?

Well, India and China are not going to give up fossil fuels. They arrived late to the party. They resent the First World wagging their fingers at them after stuffing themselves silly.

Well, India and China are not going to give up fossil fuels. They arrived late to the party. They resent the First World wagging their fingers at them after stuffing themselves silly. — RogueAI

I totally agree. And don't forget Africa and most of South America.

Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have. — Mikie

How do you think that I knew about the link that I cited? Do you think that I just guessed it randomly or had I read the paragraph that I suggested you read.

Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).

But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".

Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation?

Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.

Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.

50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming.

Below is a map showing the temperature difference between winter and summer for locations on earth. Some places has a temperature difference of over 70 degrees Celsius between winter and summer. Compare this to +1.0 degree Celsius of global-warming. Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming.

Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly). — Agree to Disagree

This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure.

But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".

Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation? — Agree to Disagree

We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on.

Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.

Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.

50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming. — Agree to Disagree

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures.

A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise.

And also important to realise is that we do not experiences averages, but we do experience the extremes... a couple of days of extreme temperature is enough to kill a lot of people, animals, and plants and crops. Averages are just there to track the evolution of warming.

And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me.

Plants and animals have evolved to tolerate seasonal change in temperature, but not to tolerate higher or lower extremes. This is not open to discussion, or something to be settled scientifically, but well know fact at this point.

Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
— Agree to Disagree

This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure. — ChatteringMonkey

I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures

Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?

Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.

We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on. — ChatteringMonkey

We don't directly measure the average high temperature or the average low temperature off some device. It is an "average" which requires a statistical calculation.

We directly measure the temperature a certain number of times a day and work out (calculate) what the high temperature is for the day, and what the low temperature is for the day.

There are Weather websites that you can look at to see these values. But how many locations does the average person look at. I looked at data for 36,000 locations so that I got a global picture.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures. — ChatteringMonkey

I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.

Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.

And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me. — ChatteringMonkey

Rate of temperature change = change in temperature / time
If we want the result in degrees Celsius per year, and the temperature changes by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months, then the rate of temperature change = 25 / 0.5 = 50 degrees Celsius per year. Note that this rate of change only applies to the 6 months we are looking at, not the whole year.

A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise. — ChatteringMonkey

Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.

Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?

Not all extremes are bad.

I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures

Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?

Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing. — Agree to Disagree

Both.

It's a convention, like I said, and makes some sense considering the industrial revolution was the time we started burning fossil fuels, and therefore emitting CO2, which was indentified as a greenhouse gas. But ultimately it doesn't matter what point you take as a starting point, what matters is absolute temperatures and rate of change.

It would be a good thing if all we did was return to pre-little ice-age temperatures, but that's not the case, we going to temperatures not experienced for 100.000 of years, and the rate of change is probably unprecedented in all of earths history.

I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.

Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good. — Agree to Disagree

No, it's about 1) extreme temperatures on the one hand, and 2) how fast those are rising on the other.

1) No matter how slow you raise temperatures, we couldn't handle boiling water. There's a maximum of temperature combined with humidity we can handle.

2) Animals and plants have evolved strategies to deal with seasonal changes in temperature, they shed their leaves, they hibernate, they go dormant etc etc... They don't have strategies for dealing with extreme temperatures on top of seasonal changes.

There are more people living in places where increase in temperature is bad, India, Africa etc... Those people will need to move if warming continues because of wet-bulb temperatures, rise in sea-level, failing agriculture... Where do you think they will go?

But more importantly you're missing what it entails for ecosystems. Animals and certainly plants can't adapt to this rapid change in extremes because evolution is a much slower process than the current rate of change caused by climate change. This means a lot of earths ecosystem is or will die off.

Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.

Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?

Not all extremes are bad. — Agree to Disagree

I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_North_America_heat_wave

And it's not just a little bit higher... changes in extremes are bigger than the average global rise in temperature, and changes in nothern hemisphere averages are also higher than rises in global average.

Also billions of climate refugees will cause problems regardless of whether some rise in temperature isn't that bad locally in some places.

Plants don't have legs to migrate to northern latitudes, or heating/clothes to adapt to the worst of extreme temperatures. And animals depend on plants... Even in those places that a couple of degrees wouldn't be that bad for humans, it would be bad for the ecosystems that evolved in temperatures that are changing rapidly.

Pole and glacial ice will melt eventually with a couple of degrees, which means global sea rise everywhere regardless of local temperature. Even if we manage to re-locate this will costs enormous amounts of money because a lot of big cities are built near the coast.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.

Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming. — Agree to Disagree

Wow.

Yeah, you’re right— I guess you’re really on to something! Keep up the great work.

If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing. — Agree to Disagree

I’m glad to see the fully-fledged denier in you coming out. My senses still serve me well I see.

Even after all the politician-like statements about how you “of course” don’t deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes blah blah blah.

First nothing can be done because it’s cold in Russia.

Then scientists around the world are misleading people by focusing on anomalies and averages, rather than the “actual” temperatures that you alone have put nicely in a graph.

Then “what about the little ice age?”

Now: maybe a warming planet is a good thing?

So very predictable. Anyone who can’t see this is a complete imbecile.

Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good. — Agree to Disagree

“Alarmists.” :lol:

Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally):

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



We haven’t gone over 300 ppm in 800 THOUSAND years. Hence the rapid rise in temperatures.

If we really don’t yet understand why that’s a bad thing— for everyone — then fortunately there’s Google.

Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally): — Mikie

There are no "climate deniers" on this page. It's a poor form of bullying to intentionally misinterpret someone's posts. Let's not do that.

I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means. — ChatteringMonkey

Like with most climate deniers, this will slowly become more apparent.

But I appreciate you taking over the annoying job of explaining things. I think I’m tapped out.

...

incentives and disincentives — unenlightened

... is a good place to start, wouldn't you say?

Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: It was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a think tank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry.

Those were simpler, more innocent times, and I miss them.

True, greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism. But climate denial has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support.

And this cultural dimension of climate arguments has emerged at the worst possible moment — a moment when both the extreme danger from unchecked emissions and the path toward slashing those emissions are clearer than ever.

[…]

Back in 2009, when Democrats tried but failed to take significant climate action, their policy proposals consisted mainly of sticks — limits on emissions in the form of permits that businesses could buy and sell. In 2022, when the Biden administration finally succeeded in passing a major climate bill, it consisted almost entirely of carrots — tax credits and subsidies for green energy. Yet thanks to the revolution in renewable technology, energy experts believe that this all-gain-no-pain approach will have major effects in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But not if Republicans can help it. The Heritage Foundation is spearheading an effort called Project 2025 that will probably define the agenda if a Republican wins the White House next year. As The Times reports, it calls for “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”

What’s behind this destructive effort? Well, Project 2025 appears to have been largely devised by the usual suspects — fossil-fueled think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that have been crusading against climate science and climate action for many years.

But the political force of this drive, and the likelihood that there will be no significant dissent from within the G.O.P. if Republicans do take the White House, has a lot to do with the way science in general and climate science in particular have become a front in the culture war.

Paul Krugman (I gifted a free article.)

The Republican blindness and mendacity on this issue is truly depressing, but then, I hope that they're heading for a shellacking next year and won't be able to spike the wheels.

Meanwhile, there's been a flurry of articles the last few days about the economic and fiscal reality of actually transitioning to green energy, especially in the UK, where transitioning the power grid is going to cost huge money. See Europe blinks in its commitment to a great green transition (WaPo, gift article).

Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.

Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?

Not all extremes are bad.
— Agree to Disagree

I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold?

Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells. — ScienceDaily

Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed, according to research that suggests prolonged exposure to moderately cold temperatures kills more people than scorching or freezing spells.

The study of deaths in 13 countries, published in the Lancet medical journal, found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, and that premature deaths are more often caused by prolonged spells of moderate cold than short extreme bursts. — TheGuardian

It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.

Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from 2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in heat deaths).

Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming. — TheBreakThrough

Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold? — Agree to Disagree

Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh?

That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. — frank

No sign of that actually occuring, though. It's a theoretical possibility, but the evidence doesn't support it.

Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh? — frank

So warming causes cooling.

I think that the key word in your comment is "might".

For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor?

Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?

So warming causes cooling. — Agree to Disagree

It's happened before, yes.

I think that the key word in your comment is "might". — Agree to Disagree

Nobody has a crystal ball unfortunately.

For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor? — Agree to Disagree

I'm not scaremongering. I don't want you to be afraid. You have a right to think whatever you want. Don't we all?

Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf? — Agree to Disagree

Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you?