Many states and countries are making an effort. Some more than others. But pulling out of an agreement that the rest of the world tries to comply with, the US have lost a lot of influence to pressure anyone. Not only on climate change, but on many other topics too. The US used to have the moral highground in many cases, but with "America first", it looses a lot of that influence.

Climate Change accords and emission goals are not profitable. The purpose of trying to reverse damages of man-made emissions is not to make money. If the goal of the climate accords was that someone profits, or that not all nations are voluntarily promising to put effort into climate change; the purpose would not exist in the first place.

Too often people are putting jobs and money -here and now- ahead of the future of places like Florida, Texas, Shanghai, India low lying deltas, and kicking the problem to the next generation.

Climate change was meant to be a concerted effort by a global community to admit our future as a planet depends upon making decisions that dont always make money. Climate change is not yet cost effective, so America has turned to itself and its own interests much like Russia has.

Theres actually a lot going on in places like India and China with regards to climate goals.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/india-pledges-40-percent-electricity-renewables-2030

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-china-india.html

Simply put we are regressing while large population centers of the world are hitting the panic button. Were falling back to money over science, jobs over future, now over later.

The rest of the world is all putting in major efforts to change.

I know that there's large movements involved with replacing fossil fuel energy with alternative energy, but what about actual degassing CO2 from the atmosphere?

not even in a profit-driven model, but what methods (other than planting trees) do we have for this?

Also I think China is serious about a massive nuclear framework for the future. They also only have old reactors since '94, so they've never experienced the decommissioning process of the truly archaic reactors. That and not being one of the two big nuclear threats in the cold war means they have a large population that hates pollution in the cities and doesn't fear Nuclear

From Princeton:

What happens to fossil fuel CO2 added to air?

By burning coal, oil, and natural gas, man is adding fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate sufficient to increase its concentration in air by about 4 ppm/year. For reference, a ppm is a part per million. The pre-industrial CO2 concentration, measured in air from around 1800, was 280 ppm. Man’s activities have since increased that concentration to today’s value of about 400 ppm. Thus for every million molecules of air, there are 400 molecules of CO2.

While the rate of fossil fuel combustion is sufficient to increase CO2 annually by 4 ppm, the observed increase is only about 2 ppm. What happens to the rest? Two things. Some dissolves in seawater. In pre-industrial times, the CO2 concentration of air was in equilibrium with the CO2 concentration of surface seawater. As atmospheric CO2 has risen, the equilibrium has been perturbed, such that the “excess” of CO2 in air now drives a flux of CO2 into the sea in an effort to reestablish equilibrium.

The second process removing CO2 from the atmosphere is the growth of forests and grasslands worldwide. This conclusion may seem counter-intuitive, since we recognize that large masses of vegetation (mostly forests) are converted to CO2 in deforestation, which goes into the atmosphere. Globally, however, the growth of existing and new forests outweighs the effect of deforestation. The causes of this growth remain controversial, but at least two factors are likely to be important. The first is the regrowth of forests on abandoned farmland. The second is the fertilizing affect of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which allow CO2 to enter leaves and be transformed into tissue more rapidly by photosynthesis.

To a first approximation, about half the CO2 emitted by combustion remains in the atmosphere, about 35% dissolves in the oceans, and 15% is taken up by the increase in the biomass of forests. How do we know these numbers? The fraction remaining in air is easy: we just divide the atmospheric increase by the combustion rate. There are various ways scientists estimate ocean versus land uptake. Conceptually, the most straightforward is to make repeat measurements of the concentration of inorganic carbon in the oceans. This concentration is increasing because of the transfer of fossil CO2 from the atmosphere. Knowing the emission rate, the rate of atmospheric increase, and the rate of ocean uptake, we can calculate forest uptake.

Ok so trees are handling this part for us. thanks guys

NASA:

So while carbon dioxide contributes less to the overall greenhouse effect than water vapor, scientists have found that carbon dioxide is the gas that sets the temperature. Carbon dioxide controls the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and thus the size of the greenhouse effect.
Rising carbon dioxide concentrations are already causing the planet to heat up. At the same time that greenhouse gases have been increasing, average global temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1880.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

-didnt someone try to say this was all invented by the left to manipulate markets and stifle American prosperity? I had no idea NASA was liberal

Manmade climate change is a hoax. Thank God we are out of the Paris accords. MAGA!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Well heres proof yer wrong.
Published by NASA.
An american non-partisan agency that studies Planets.

proves nothing

More proof

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Cook study

The first is a 2013 study by John Cook, a fellow at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.

He and his co-authors examined 11,944 abstracts of climate science reports published from 1991 to 2011. Two-thirds of the abstracts didn’t express any opinion about whether man-made global warming was occurring. But among the roughly 4,000 studies that did, 97.1 percent of them "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming," the report says.

Cook also asked a sample of 1,200 authors of the climate reports to rate their own papers and say whether their research agreed that global warming was man-made. The result was that 97.2 percent of the papers that expressed an opinion about man-made global warming backed the position that it’s caused by human activity.

Cook’s methodology has been criticized.


---

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/apr/04/don-beyer/don-beyer-says-97-percent-scientists-believe-human/




If you still disagree can you run some experiments and see if you get different results? Surely if yer so passionate its a hoax youd dedicate your lifes work to proving it all was a bad financial scheme to bankrupt america

Heres some more.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/04/how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

This talks a bit about it.

More

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Just look up 'climategate' and read into it. It's very obvious that many of these government firms, agencies, and academics are manipulating data to receive more grant funding. It's all fake and a hoax.

Oh god. Go back to 4chan.

That was very rude.

@ND

in response to climate gate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

Potholer has probably the best global warming series, you should at least check it out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

ND, I live in a country that is for a large part below sea level. We see the impact of climate change. Luckily we have the money to protect ourselves. Many other countries do not, but will suffer.
If MAGA means: we just keep burning carbon and to hell with everyone else, then it does show your selfishness. 97% of scientists in the field of climate studies agree that rising temperatures are at least partially caused by human behaviour, a lot by burning carbon. Please help people in low lying areas and countries by reducing green house gasses. That would really make America great.

And even if it isn't 100% proven, wouldn't it be better to err on he safe side?

Funny how we spent trillions to invade Iraq on a tiny probability of weapons of mass destruction but can't be bothered to spend a fraction of that to avoid a much higher probability of vastly higher damages than Iraq ever would have inflicted

@Ogion

what's even worse than that: we STILL are giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies. literally the antithesis to any logical or good solution.

The Pentagon considers climate change to be a risk to national security. Hardline Tea Partier/Future Head of NASA/General Space Nerd Jim Bridenstine agrees.

I absolutely believe that the climate is changing because it has been changing for 4 billion years. Man just has nothing to do with it. That's been proven a hoax and a redistribution scheme.

Humans aren't the sole reason that climate changes, but human activity creates a situation where the climate changes at an increased rate where it's more immediately observable and thus more extreme than if fully natural climate change would be.

I mean shit, how could putting millions of years of carbon from extinct trees plants and animals into the atmosphere over a couple of centuries possibly change the climate, amirite ND?

OH

Before I do, what about when a meteor or comet impacts the earth and causes forest fires and destruction and sends that into the atmosphere?

OH

Or when a volcano, super volcano, lightning strikes that cause forest fires, etc occur that sends burnt debris into the atmosphere.

OR

You know, how the Earth has a slightly irregular rotation and orbit which has been linked to Ice Ages...

These naturally occurring events cannot be stopped. Pretending that we can play god and change the way the Earth spins or goes through naturally occurring climate events is silly.

So yeah, I was going to sarcastically concede, but cut that part out. I am not going to concede anything because I am right and I don't have a god complex and I am not pretending that we are responsible for all the world's problems (when we aren't)

super volcano

just as we get climate change under control in the mid twenty-first century:

Why the Yellowstone Supervolcano Could Be Huge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMLo0E66O8A

@ND - I read your sources. I hadn't known about that before and seeing who certain groups manipulated science was disturbing. So thank you for sharing them.

However, we should still trust the scientific community. With Climategate, they were already questioning the model proposed and there were many skeptics who were already trying to replicate the results. But this is more on the theory they were pushing than anything else - that temperatures had been decreasing then suddenly jumped. But overall it doesn't refute that there is warming now. Just that the earth was not in a 1000 year long cooling period before the industrial revolution.

The second source shows a similar exaggeration, but not a complete refutation of warming. All sources in that article agreed on warming up to 1998. The issue was NOAA published a report saying warming since then was 3x faster than it was. A huge issue, yes, since they were trying to mask that warming appeared to slow down. However, slower warming is still *warming*

Regardless of cause, even your sources do not deny that the earth is warming. So there are two options:

1) Warming is man-made. We must prepare for the effects of a warmer earth while also doing what we can to minimize emissions.

2) Warming is not man-made. We must do what we can to prepare for the effects of a warmer Earth because we're fucked otherwise.

I appreciate it @goldfinger

Look, I know there is evidence that points to man-made global warming. But, my problem is that there is also evidence that it is exaggerated, manipulated, false, etc.

However, I do believe the earth is and has gone through periods of change. I am not going to deny that. But, I don't know what you do about it.

Still, I am not against clean energy or some environmental regulations or trying to stop pollution. Those are all noble pursuits.

I mean the two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm of the very firm belief that we are causing climate change. Do I also believe that people are manipulating the data to get grant money, use for personal gain etc.? Of course.

Well, the thing that immediately comes to mind - in part because of the current situation - is better city planning and better education of the risks of living in low lying areas. Houston was built mainly by destroying wetlands and prairies that can act as sinks for water. Current regulations mandated that developers mitigate this destruction by building wetlands elsewhere or coming up with some water retention system. But overwhelmingly this was not followed. Unchecked urban sprawl will lead to more flooding.

Education is the other step. First, people need to know if they're at risk for flooding. This is the charge of the national flood insurance plan. However, the NFIP is underfunded and in debt. It cannot update flood surveys that may be decades old to account for new data. Therefore we have parts of Houston that have flooded the past three years, but are still not technically Flood zones. Not to mention everyone in flood zones should be mandated to have flood insurance in the first place.

And I mean, this is only part of the solution for one aspect of a changing climate. We could go full Netherlands and dyke the lands to control the water, I suppose. But either way, sea levels will be rising.

I'd like to see your evidence, Tom. Because having worked in science, there is very little of that. This isn't corporate America where people will do anything for money. If people want money, they don't go into science. It's a very different culture
"Clinategate" was a complete misrepresentation by sources with an agenda. As is this notion of tryin to hide the "slowdown" ( which turned out to be an artefact of marine temperature readings).

Having been involved and knowing that the anti-science zealots do not argue in good faith, I have little patience for the bullshit because just like tobacco companies these guys can manufacture fake talking points faster than scientists can debunk it. These guys take advantage of this asymmetry to line their pockets while condemning millions to miserable deaths for a little cash or worse to score cheap political points

Please link Onion my sources because pretty sure he has me muted because he doesn't like anyone who disagrees with his "facts"

Yes, lots of things change climate but few do it this intensively or this quickly. Five of six mass extinctions have been driven by spikes in atmospheric CO2. Why would you think humans survive this one?

I'm staying out of this thread because my degree allows me to say that my intelligence supersedes the intelligence of any climate denier and I don't really need to validate myself, but this...

"It's very obvious that many of these government firms, agencies, and academics are manipulating data to receive more grant funding."

...happens everywhere. Any academic anything does this. If you want grant money - big grant money - then you better make the front page. It's wrong and immoral, happens all the time, and it has absolutely no bearing on the truth or falsity of any vastly confirmed theory, climate change or otherwise.

"I'm staying out of this thread because my degree allows me to say that my intelligence supersedes the intelligence of any climate denier and I don't really need to validate myself"

your arrogance is polarizing this, and making it worse Bo.


I'm willing to look at any sources anyone else provides that go against climate change, but i'd hope you'd at least look at the other side in return

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Arrogance? Lol, no. The arrogance isn't on my end. The arrogance is in those that can't come to grips with the fact that the world is changing, that everything we know, including humanity, is in danger, and that it is happening now. I don't give a fuck what motivates you to care or whether you are resistant to the idea that humans are doing it. The fight over whether it's a Chinese hoax pits years of research, deflection, politics, and damn near consensus against a group of people that couldn't beat Homer Simpson in a spelling contest. Who cares if it's a Chinese hoax? You replace your toothbrush after you get over your cold on the off chance that you could get sick from it again because it's smart to be preventative. You change your air filter every other oil change even though you have never actually had an issue with an old air filter because the car professionals tell you to. You purchase insurance on the off chance that something happens to you, even if it is a slim chance. These same principles apply to climate change. Whether you think it matters or not to be preventative with regard to Earth's future, whether you believe the people who have spent their lives trying to save your dumb ass from your own mistakes, or whether you blindly assume that you can't possibly be wrong and that it couldn't possibly happen to you, get the fuck over yourself. Start caring, stop denying, and stop fighting. You're gonna look like a real life Wayne Campbell to your grandkids for putting your own naive and uninformed moral platitudes above their safety and prosperity, and even if it turns out that everything that science has come to know is completely wrong, they should and will hate you for taking that chance on their lives.

@bo

that's a whole bunch of ranting, and a whole lot of... well, not much else. from now on, i'm always going to link the following video series to the ends of my comments on climate change, to show where my perspective has been largely formed from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

there, you see? that's a direct link to a video series made by Peter Hadley, a reputable science journalist, who has worked in accordance with the BBC, and here by himself on youtube.

It's well sourced, covers a wide arrange of topics about climate change, and is accurate.



your ranting makes people more likely to be vitriolic in response to you. Your ranting also contains no actual evidence for anthropogenic.

those two paragraphs have accomplished NOTHING in swaying the minds of skeptics or deniers.



furthermore, it's clear that you have no actually checked any of my sources. what i am linking is a series that PROVE that anthropogenic climate change is caused by CO2 emissions, and it debunks many of the falsehoods surrounding it.

even though you are on the correct side in this debate, your manner and approach to the debate is why you are losing.



there's enough confusion in the climate debate, simply because most of the general population can't pierce through the science, much less the politicization.




stop making the problem worse

for anthropogenic *global warming*

Bo, you just go on ranting. You are right to call people to task for their actions. Mostly what i read on this forum is people pontificating, telling others how to live but not doing it themselves. i will hold to my right of center beliefs and still drive one of my two prius and take sunlight and convert it to electricity with my panels

Ok, I'm really curious now...

"You replace your toothbrush after you get over your cold on the off chance that you could get sick from it again because it's smart to be preventative"

Do people actually do this?

what's a toothbrush?

Idk Octavius, I do. I'm pretty confident that it doesn't really make a difference.

I'm pretty confident you're right. I've always assumed that once your body has learned to beat a cold you're safe from ever catching it again. There's perhaps an argument for sterilizing it with boiling water if you want to go to the nth to protect family, but throwing it away seems a tad wasteful. Think of the planet ;)!

What amazes me is that the study found over 100 abstracts by climate scientists that opined that climate change wasn't caused by human involvement. Makes you curious as to why, doesn't it? It's clearly not just a couple of loons, so are we looking at early studies before the evidence became overwhelming, or studies paid for by people who want to see certain results, or studies that look from different perspectives that for whatever reason give different conclusions? Rather brave of them to pin their names to such papers, regardless of whether you think it's tosh or not.

Against the tens of thousands of papers indicating otherwise

I'd guess you answer lies somewhere in the vicinity of the bank balance resulting from oil industry checks

Brad, you have zero notion what people do or don't do. My house is powered 100% from solar and I have only EVs. I don't use fossil fuels except for my stove which I have to replace soon. I rent so that's just lost money for me, but burning fossil fuels is immoral.

And if you have scientific training, it isn't pontificating, it's educating, although there are a ton of incomparably thick students out there

Solar and wind I should say