Aren’t you the master of cut and paste ? XR for your contemplation.
What you didn’t attend yourself. What a shocking disappointment.
Gentlemen, behave yourselves. The last few posts have not contributed to the conversation. They are nothing more than bickering.
Take about 20 steps back and get a bigger picture.
Human’s have made an impact from the 1950’s on the environment. That is a change from the beginning of the Industrial Age. But to be an Epoch. It has got to be major. To take it back 2.6M years. Does that seem logical to you?
As far as an Anthropocene Epoch. It is not an Epoch. It is an Event at most.
In a word – research.
Climate Change is man-made. That is the definition of the words. Today we don’t say Mother Nature. We say Climate Change. But we don’t say the oceans of salt. We say the oceans of water. Maybe if salt was political. We would be saying, oceans of salt. That is about the same thing.
Is it scientific or political. Most articles will start with an opener in science and then move right into political viewpoints without the readers understanding the subject matter. Blame it on poor schooling.
Let’s look at Co2. From the 1890’s to the 40’s we had the Dust Bowl. And the idea came about that it could be caused by greenhouse gasses. Then from the 40’s to the 70’s we had cooling. Co2 was cooling the earth and we had climatologists predicting that we were heading into a new ice age.
Then it started to warm up and a connection was made between the warming and the Co2. Meanwhile, a lot of governmental departments had been set up to follow this ice age weather and continued following the change to warmth. In 79’ climate change was becoming a political issue. By 85’ the sea level rise was due to greenhouse gasses and Co2 was the main gas. The IPCC was created and there was a call for a 20% cut in global Co2. The acid rain did not seem to be an issue anymore. Europeans were leading the Co2 push. But by 2006 the lead was changed to America by Al Gore pushing the hockey stick theory. Obama found Co2 politically useful and dumped a ton of taxpayer money on promoting Co2.
Ok. What is missing? The legal actions. Like tobacco, there should be lawsuits against major Co2 contributors. The hockey stick was ridiculed for manipulating science. Mann sued the people who disagree with his science and spoke openly about it. The collage Mann worked at was covering all the legal costs. The biggest problem with the hockey stick was Mann supplied no data. Then got promoted to a government money controller on Climate Change.
The idea was if it got to court then the science could be challenged.
This seems like the logical steps for American system being use.
But the Mann legal team kept dragging the cases out. It was not about Mann anymore. It was more about government pouring so much money into a political controlled science. I mean it work ok with the Manhattan Project. So, what was the problem here?
In legal cases on science both sides find out the most they can about the data on the subject.
So, logically we need to look at the legal case and the knowledge gathered. We should be able to do this because the legal was be covered by the college and data should be available.
University of Pennsylvania 5-1-2010 Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
The above data seems to be in a the right time-period.
To cut to the chase. They say there is no confidence in the climate models. Does not sound like they would be good to use in court.
When it comes to the IPCC.
One of the most striking features of the established climate change story is the seemingly increasing tendency to simply ignore even the most rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific evidence when it tends to disconfirm either customary interpretations of paleoclimatic data or predictions of the coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models (GCM’s) that are used to generate virtually all of the IPCC’s quantitative predictions.
Sounds like you would not want to put the IPCC in court on your side.
Where is the beef? The legal data on Co2?
As this period of time has also been a period of cool global climate, for this most recent period, cool global climate and relatively low levels of CO2 coincide. But over the Phanerozoic period as a whole, at least one long-term CO2 reconstruction finds “no correspondence” between atmospheric CO2 levels and global climate, while other studies find periods of up to 100 million years when high levels of CO2 were accompanied by cold temperatures in at least some regions of the world (indeed so many such periods that one review has characterized this finding as one of “perisistent Phanerozoic decorrelation” between tropical (low latitude) temperature and modeled CO2-induced radiative forcing).
This could be the reason Co2 never made it to court. “no correspondence” between atmospheric CO2 levels and global climate,.
It is not a game killer, there are scientists that claim connections. But then they say there is a problem because they don’t have cloud data on future anthropogenic gas projections. In other words, they don’t know how the gasses interact with clouds.
One should note how remarkable are these series of statements. After stating that scientists really have no idea how CO2 might have affected climate in the “widely varying configuration and states of the planet” that have prevailed over the past several hundred million years, Crowley and Berner then say that because extremely crude and imprecise proxy measures suggest a correlation between climate and CO2, we should continue to presume that CO2 played a role in causing climate change. Absent any other showing, this seems to be faith, not logic.
So writ4u, this takes us back to the original question. If the ice cores shows, the heat came first then many years latter the Co2 followed. Then the Co2 is not the driver of the climate of the past. It still can be a drive of heat. But it is not the driver that drove the past climate cycles.
Ahn and Brook found a correlation between increases in CO2 and warming periods, but also found that unlike the large increases in methane that are known to have immediately preceded temperature increases, “CO2 does not lead temperature, [and] CO2 variations were not a direct trigger for the climate changes that occurred during the last glacial period.”
What else do they have for us?
“nearly all of the warming in glacial/interglacial deep-water warming occurred before 17,500 years ago, and therefore before both the onset of deglacial warming in tropical Pacific surface waters and the increase in CO2 concentrations…together that the onset of deglacial warming throughout the Southern Hemisphere occurred long before deglacial warming began in the tropical surface ocean…[and this means] that the mechanism responsible for initiating the deglacial events does not lie directly within the tropics itself, nor can these events be explained by CO2 forcing alone. Both CO2 and the tropical SST’s did not begin to change until well after 18 kyB.P., approximately 1000 years after the benthic record indicates that the Southern Ocean was warming.”
Here the legal research paper is saying not to use a lot of the accepted theories on Co2 in court. Because they will not hold water.
Where does that leave us. It helps tell us where to set the datum points.
– the temperature increase predicted to result from a CO2 doubling—is “widely believed to be due to uncertainties in cloud feedbacks.” Relatively small temperature increases are predicted by models that predict increased low-level cloudiness, while big temperature increases are predicted by models that predict decreased low-level cloudiness.
Sounds like if it warms and we get more clouds then Co2 will have Relatively small temperature increases. Not anything to take to court for Co2.
Write4u, this legal research paper pretty much gives the reasons the Climate Change cases never got the science into the court room.
Everything is not falling apart. How did the Co2 causing the next Ice Age work out. Hell, the coming ice age was one of the reasons I moved to California. So, don’t say I am not acting. This time I want the science.
Destroying our life and society supporting biosphere, is more than an Event.
But I guess it takes some sense, along with a functioning brain and heart to recognize what’s going down outside our cozy shelters.
Mike you are pathetically deluded, I can’t figure out which rock you been hiding under to be so disconnected from physical reality, but you managed it. Too much Ego, not enough Integrity, I imagine.
https://www.overshootday.org
Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. In 2021, it fell on July 29.We know it can be overwhelming to think about the various impacts of global ecological overshoot such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and extreme weather events (to name a few). However, thriving lives within the means of our planet are not out of reach. …
National Geographic
RESOURCE LIBRARY COLLECTIONHUMAN IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Humans impact the physical environment in many ways: overpopulation, pollution, burning fossil fuels, and deforestation. Changes like these have triggered climate change, soil erosion, poor air quality, and undrinkable water. These negative impacts can affect human behavior and can prompt mass migrations or battles over clean water.
Help your students understand the impact humans have on the physical environment with these classroom resources. …
This is geared for 5-8th graders, so you might have a chance at comprehending some of it. But only if you try!
Here’s another interesting report on the actual designation. For those who might be genuinely interested.
- NEWS FEATURE
- 06 August 2019
- Correction 02 October 2019
Humans versus Earth: the quest to define the Anthropocene
Researchers are hunting for nuclear debris, mercury pollution and other fingerprints of humanity that could designate a new geological epoch.
“… Crawford Lake is one of ten sites around the globe that researchers are studying as potential markers for the start of the Anthropocene, an as-yet-unofficial designation that is being considered for inclusion in the geological time scale. The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), a committee of 34 researchers formed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) in 2009, is leading the work, with the aim of crafting a proposal to formally recognize the Anthropocene. This new epoch would mark a clear departure from the Holocene, which started with the close of the last ice age. To define a new epoch, the researchers need to find a representative marker in the rock record that identifies the point at which human activity exploded to such a massive scale that it left an indelible signature on the globe. …”
After a decade of investigating this question, the AWG decided in May that humans had, in fact, left an indelible geological mark. In a binding vote in May, 29 of the 34 members opted to move forward with developing a proposal supporting the designation of the Anthropocene. …
In its recent vote, the AWG members decided overwhelmingly to pursue a GSSP in the mid-twentieth century. This time marks the start of the ‘Great Acceleration’, a vast transformation after the Second World War when the growing population began consuming resources and creating completely new materials at an exponential rate, eclipsing even the Industrial Revolution. …
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:729, topic:7916”]
As far as an Anthropocene Epoch. It is not an Epoch. It is an Event at most
Well as far as you are concerned , you are wrong at best.
ep·och
noun
a period of time in history or a person’s life, typically one marked by notable events or particular characteristics.
“the Victorian epoch”
There is no time element attached to the word “epoch”.
It is merely a period of time in history.
.
Interesting. Now let’s try the word “space”. Would closet space be the same as outer space?
Try “Anthropocene Epoch”. Go to the department that is making the judgement on the use of the name and get their definition.
Meanwhile back in the real world, direct climate action is taking place in other countries
Some bold actions shutting down oil terminals & refineries in Norway & the Netherlands.
Dear rebel,
It’s been a long wait, but a wave of rebellion has once again rippled across the globe.
Thousands of rebels coursed through three European capitals to demand action on the climate and ecological crisis.
With Covid in remission and social restrictions easing across much of the continent, the streets of Berlin, then Oslo, then London, were again the stage for some much-needed mass disruption.
In Oslo rebels from all over Scandinavia united for one week of Nordic Rebellion, and with elections imminent, managed to get Norway’s oil extraction firmly onto the political agenda.
In Berlin thousands of rebels overcame prolific policing to rise up and launch their own politically pointed actions. Some rebels even rose up to the top of the Brandenburg Gate.
And finally in London rebels from across the UK launched their Impossible Rebellion, two weeks of roving actions that exposed The City, captured the media, and included a lot of talking around tables.
You can find out much more about these spectacular, inventive and expertly choreographed campaigns in Action Highlights.
There’s also still time to get involved in the next ones! Check out Upcoming Actions to see how you can help the rebellion wave resurface in Italy, where both the YouthCOP and PreCOP conferences will be held, and in the Netherlands.
While the sheer level of rebel activity has made the last few weeks feel special, the truth is that away from our movement, much feels depressingly familiar.
Another extreme weather event has struck, with Hurricane Ida devastating large parts of the US and Caribbean. Its high winds and flash floods have left death, toxic chemicals and spilled oil in its wake.
While our politicians may now be bold enough to blame climate change for this season of chaos, the policies needed to stop the weather getting worse are still nowhere to be seen.
In just two short months our leaders will converge for a summit conference in Glasgow, and we shall see what they bring to the COP table.
But for now, it is time for our movement to celebrate our raucous return, and for those involved to regenerate. Rebellion may be incredible, and what this world badly needs, but it is also exhausting.
As we enter a period of reflection and repair, we must build on what we did right, learn from what we did wrong, and ready ourselves for the great rebellions still to come.
[continues…]
Our in-house cut and paste rebel.
What’s their message? The one that will change the hearts and minds of the masses and our leaders?
Not that I don’t appreciate what they are trying to do, I’m aware of a lot of theatrical protests, but haven’t seen their results. Besides, it feels like your trying to brow beat us. What gives?
What gives indeed.
Oh Tex, I keep trying to give you the benefit of doubt, but what the heck was that about? Excellent intelligent old people, well spoken.
What of it, where was the solution?
Right back at you. What gives?
Great grandparents. Many others would tell their grand kids don’t bother taking any action. What gives with that???
Get on their website
Oh great, a snippet of data on Weather for the deniers to seize upon:
Yeah I saw that this morning. It’s worth noting,
“The unusual cold was attributed to two extended periods of stronger-than-average encircling winds around the continent, which tend to isolate the ice sheet from warmer conditions,” the NSIDC explained.
“A strong upper-atmosphere polar vortex was observed as well, leading to a significant ozone hole.
The ozone hole appears to have peaked as of this post, with initial measurements reporting that it is in the upper quartile (top 25 percent) of ozone reduction events since 1979.”
Then a few paragraphs later they repeat the good 'ol lesson:
Weather versus climate
It is important to understand weather is different from climate. Weather is what happens over shorter periods of time (days to months), such as the seven-day forecast. Climate is what happens over much longer periods of time, such as several years, or even entire generations.
“One such example is a cold snap, which can happen due to sudden changes in atmospheric circulation and may not be linked to climate change,” says Tom Slater, Research Fellow at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds. …
Drives me up the wall, all that f’n blah, blah - when simply explaining that our Anthropogenic Global Warming makes our Earth’s insulating atmosphere, more insulating. That atmospheric insulating up there is what’s causing current global warming.
After that, the warming gets circulated through Earth’s amazingly huge and complex atmosphere and ocean currents. That is what we are witness as weather, heat being moved around Earth.
Which to repeat, is distinct (if, intimately connected) from the increasing heat, Earth’s upper atmosphere retains.
Oh another troupe that sends me up the wall - The fact is, manmade global warming is impacting every aspect of Earth’s climate engine, THERE IS NO WEATHER EVENT ACTING INDEPENDENT OF THE OVERALL HEATING HAPPENING WITHIN THE SYSTEM. EVERY MAJOR WEATHER EVENT HAS BEEN TWEAKED BY EARTH’S INCREASED ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION AND OVERALL WARMING.
But most are afraid to admit it.
Yes indeed, some Europeans are having to choose whether they want to be green or warm this winter. Maybe Russia will save them from the cold.
Has anyone seen any data on the total carbon footprint of producing, shipping, installing, maintaining, removing and recycling a home solar power unit and the associated batteries? I know for my home installing solar is not a viable economic proposition, but I don’t know whether the total carbon footprint is less than just staying on the grid because I know we will have to keep the grid operational for at least the life of any home installation I could do and probably far into the future.
Yes, I’ve often wondered about the “Total Cost” of going green in some instances. Are we just pushing the problem somewhere else.
That’s like the European energy companies claiming “Green” because they burn “Biomass fuel” … which is wood pellets made from trees harvested in the US. (I posted about this somewhere)
So
clear forests + transport raw material + manufacturing of the pellets + transport of pellets across the ocean = Clean Energy?
I’d have to cut down trees in my yard for solar - the trees that help shade the house. And our local climate does not seem to be that conducive to solar energy anyways.