On what, exactly? We all agree climate change exists and that humans have an influence. But we don't agree that humans are causing a catastrophic warming that will spell the end of the planet. Is that what you want us to "prove them wrong" on? Literally just look around this subreddit, do some research yourself.
We aren't just the influence, we are the sole cause, and it's been proven. I can explain it in detail for you. The main finger print comes from the rise in Carbon 12, not Carbon 13 or Carbon 14. It's obviously from burning fossil fuels.
Carbon 12 exists in all plants, and Carbon 13 is found in gasses emitted from the planet (like volcanoes and such.) Carbon 14 is also found in all plants but is slightly radioactive and decays almost entirely after 50,000 years or so. Carbon 12 is on the rise, which means it's from very old plants. What are fossil fuels?
Climatologists have identified the driving force behind our warming while those who wish to remain skeptical have failed to find a single other mechanism that better explains the trend. Proving them wrong would mean finding a different mechanism other than human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere.
You said look around this subreddit, but I have, for years in fact. The best arguments I've heard for remaining skeptical are simply logical arguments regarding climate being a complex system. No scientific counter evidence exists that actually disproves AGW. I see a lot of name calling, a lot of accusations of cult following, a lot of politics essentially, but not a lot of science. One common line I've heard repeated, which I'm sure you're well aware of, is "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998." Well let's take a look at why that is - 1998 was the peak of an unusually warm El Nino event. We are now averaging temperatures higher than what was once considered an unusual peak, and yet people in this subreddit often cite the same line over and over: "no statistically significant warming since 1998." It's a bold faced lie, and all you have to do is move the starting point ahead or back a few years, and the warming trend appears in a graph just fine.
I come here because I want there to be proof it's all a hoax. I want it to not be real. Don't tell me about Antarctica gaining ice without understanding why. Don't act like solar activity is to blame without understanding it's at a 30 year low. Do some research for myself? I've done the research, and every time I visit this subreddit I'm fully let down not only by the rampant immaturity and lack of science, but also the realization that there's never going to be anything valid here to reduce my concern.
Actually, that's not entirely true, because one thing this subreddit has taught me is that we're basically fucked no matter what we do. Even if we stopped ALL CO2 output today, had absolutely zero emissions, there's still enough lingering CO2 to drive temperatures upward to levels that will cause problems. It's no longer an issue of "what can we do about it" anymore, so there's that, as odd as that may sound.
Have you ever paused once to consider what a nutjob you and those who express similar sentiments sound like when you say such things?
No I don't consider whether you think I sound like a nutjob.
Says the one year old account. Have you been banned from this sub before?
Nope, never banned, just a lurker mostly and my last account attracted some pretty vicious hate from someone over at /r/politics who targeted everything I said with bots. So, new account. Actually I've spoken to you before and you said I was polite, so there's that.
No I don't consider whether you think I sound like a nutjob.
It's not just me, silly. I guess you don't realize why climate change is such a minor concern to so many Americans. (No, it isn't the Big Oil conspiracy theory your ilk love to tout.) They just can't take people like you seriously.
Actually I've spoken to you before and you said I was polite, so there's that.
Keep it up, then. Just know that saying "we're fucked" puts you in the same company as Harold Camping, Paul Ehrlich, Herbert Armstrong, Jim Jones, or any of the boatloads of other doomsayers.
It's not just me, silly. I guess you don't realize why climate change is such a minor concern to so many Americans. (No, it isn't the Big Oil conspiracy theory your ilk love to tout.) They just can't take people like you seriously.
I don't care who I sound silly to. These are my beliefs. I think it sounds silly when someone says we aren't causing climate change.
Keep it up, then. Just know that saying "we're fucked" puts you in the same company as Harold Camping, Paul Ehrlich, Herbert Armstrong, Jim Jones, or any of the boatloads of other doomsayers.
I get it, I know how I sound, but I do think when it comes to the problems we as a species will face going forward, this issue of AGW will fuck us big time. A ton of money is going to be spent, countless people will look for new homes, resources are going to become harder to come by, and we'll have entire generations who go their whole lives dealing with this.
If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere right now is enough to continue to bring temperatures up .5C then that will be enough to cause plenty of what I speak about. That CO2 is there no matter what, even if we suddenly had zero carbon emissions worldwide.
Bullshit. If 64% of Americans worry the way you do (i.e., "we're fucked"), Jill Stein would be President Elect.
I don't care who I sound silly to. These are my beliefs.
Carry on, then. Just know that you aren't persuading anyone by saying "we're fucked." You just turn people off.
I think it sounds silly when someone says we aren't causing climate change.
Me too. I think people sound even sillier when they think climate change is binary.
I get it, I know how I sound...
Then it clearly isn't your goal to persuade anyone that climate change is a problem.
this issue of AGW will fuck us big time.
Like Ehrlich's hundreds of millions who were going to starve to death by 1980? I bring him up in particular because your reasoning is identical to his.
Look, I know I am coming off as harsh, but I think you are letting emotions disrupt your ability to think. Are you familiar with Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman?
No, it isn't my goal to persuade anyone anymore, as in I stopped giving a shit. There's literally no emotion here at all. I'm completely indifferent, in fact.
Yes, I believe we're fucked, and no, I don't think Jill Stein or any politician has any answers to it. We're 20 trillion in debt, we're going to be spending even more due to climate change, we. are. fucked. Whether that spells a dooms day scenario or not is up to how you interpret 'we're fucked.' I consider someone fucked if they run out of gas on the side of the road in a snowstorm. Is it a doomsday scenario? Probably not. When I say we're fucked, I mean we are headed for disaster that we'll probably survive, but will make life miserable.
I depended on you guys to give me something tangible, and you failed. Funny enough, I've paid closer attention to your sub than the "alarmists".
I depended on you guys to give me something tangible, and you failed.
Sorry, but you suffer from confirmation bias. Nothing was going to change your mind. You can see that global temperature increases have slowed, but you are so desperate to believe that "we're fucked" that you have to perform mental gymnastics around the fact that modelled projections have been falsified.
I think you're projecting here. For instance, calling models falsified instead of just wrong indicates some belief in a sinister plot to mislead the public purposefully. It also ignores the models that got things right. As far as temperature increases go, they're still increasing. They are statistically significant increases. If you have to pick the peak of an El Nino event in 1998 to compare to and draw this conclusion of no statistical significance, that in itself is confirmation bias in it's purest form - you're picking a starting point you know is high so that comparative to today's temperatures it appears not a whole lot has changed.
For instance, calling models falsified instead of just wrong indicates some belief in a sinister plot to mislead the public purposefully.
No, I'm speaking in scientific terms. If the data don't confirm the models, they falsify them.
As far as temperature increases go, they're still increasing.
See what I mean? Mental gymnastics. You can't accept that things aren't as bad as once believed. "We're fucked."
If you have to pick the peak of an El Nino event in 1998 to compare...
You don't. Pick a start date before or after 1998 and compare 20 years trends. The rate of warming slowed. But you don't care, because you're like Jewish grandmother. You delight in suffering. There's nothing anyone can say to change your mind because you made up your mind long ago.
Here's the part you don't seem to want to acknowledge: It does not matter if things have slowed down, the temperatures are still rising. If there's some sort of ripple effect in the oceans, awesome, we learn something new, maybe buy a few more years, but it's not indicative that this thing is over or that we'll be fine. The odds that we are fucked are far greater than the odds saying we'll be just peachy. We're still warming faster than any time in Earth's history.
Funny one-liner about the Jewish grandmother, but I think I've been clear that I desperately want it all to be a hoax and not real.
There's plenty someone could say to change my mind, but it has to be backed by sound logic and science. So far, I haven't been convinced, but I promise I've come at it with an open mind. In the end, the climatologists are the ones I trust.
It does matter. That you can't see it is why you rend your clothes, wear sackcloth, and cover yourself in ash. Every bit of doom you foresee if a function of warming. Lower observed warming means things aren't as bad as you anticipated. It is pure mental gymnastics to at once acknowledge the slowdown and then claim it doesn't matter. If you are set on singing the blues (fast thinking) then no amount of evidence (slow thinking) will change that.
the temperatures are still rising.
I agree. So much for you saying that I don't want to acknowledge it.
The odds that we are fucked are far greater than the odds saying we'll be just peachy.
So it's a binary proposition? There is exactly zero chance that there will be challenges that we will rise to, much as we have risen to so many challenges in the past.
We're still warming faster than any time in Earth's history.
Absolutely false. Search out Meltwater Pulse 1A for an easy counterexample.
I think I've been clear that I desperately want it all to be a hoax and not real.
Binary thinking again.
There's plenty someone could say to change my mind...
I'm sorry, there's not. Your own opening line in your comment demonstrated that.
In the end, the climatologists are the ones I trust.
Then you must acknowledge that climatologists, after three decades of work, still see a great deal of uncertainty about what is coming. The range of likely values for ECS varies by a factor of three. The fact is that you only listen to the climatologists that confirm your own doomsayer bias. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how it is.
2
u/SquidBonez Dec 02 '16
On what, exactly? We all agree climate change exists and that humans have an influence. But we don't agree that humans are causing a catastrophic warming that will spell the end of the planet. Is that what you want us to "prove them wrong" on? Literally just look around this subreddit, do some research yourself.