The Other Emergency

[_honorentheos]

Quietly making the news today -

https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1QE1ZU

They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth's surface had reached a "five-sigma" level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a "gold standard" was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday's study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.

[_MeDotOrg]

Humans have never faced a threat like climate change. It is a global threat that requires a global response. The tipping point is right around the corner, and the United States is finally accepting the gravity of the situation by appointing asking William Happer to head a climate change panel.

The demonization of carbon dioxide is like the demonization of the Jews.

Happer is considered fringe by climate change deniers. I hope future generations remember that this wack job was who Trump picked to evaluate what will be a world-wide catastrophe.

If we are going to do anything about climate change, the leadership will not come from the White House. People will have to take the initiative for an end-around.

[_subgenius]

In 2000 it was estimated that doubling CO2 would result in warming of anywhere from 6 to 11 degrees F. Ten years later, warming of maybe 5 F max...the last 5 years, estimates are at 2 F warming.
CO2 isn't the culprit, land use and water use have been used to skew "averages" in order to create a call for the redistribution of wealth - that's it.
Look at "Green" New Deal and wonder what in the heck does a guaranteed wage have to do with climate? How does the transfer of wealth from nations who profited from petroleum to poorer nations influence "warming"?
Yes, climate changes - always has...and yes, Washington DC is a warmer urban island so of course the temperature "average" for the Virginia area is influenced...but so is the growing season ;)

So, the US has cut back greenhouse gas emissions by 13% since 2005...and the climate has responded how?

[_EAllusion]

In 2000 it was estimated that doubling CO2 would result in warming of anywhere from 6 to 11 degrees F. Ten years later, warming of maybe 5 F max...the last 5 years, estimates are at 2 F warming.

I love the use of passive voice here. Cite your sources.

CO2 isn't the culprit, land use and water use have been used to skew "averages" in order to create a call for the redistribution of wealth - that's it.

This sounds like the urban heat island effect denialist argument, but it is so poorly articulated, it's hard to say for sure if that's what you are even trying to say.

If you google "urban heat island effect" every initial link you see explains the science behind it, how climatologists account for it, and why the kind of argument you are attempting to make, probably, is misleading and/or poorly thought out. Take your pick.

So, the US has cut back greenhouse gas emissions by 13% since 2005...and the climate has responded how?

I stopped chopping my arm off at a 30% slower rate, but that hasn't stopped the bleeding. Riddle me that, doctor!

[_EAllusion]

On a serious note, it takes a bit of time for climate to catch up with the impact of atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Because climate reports are worded with an optimistic "if you take this drastic action, then this is the best case scenario" version, I think it's lost on a lot of people that we're probably already at CO2 levels that augur future temp increases that will have major deleterious impacts. The political reality is we're not taking those drastic actions in time. Now we're deciding how deep to dig our hole. And no, slowing the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is not sufficient to stop global warming.