Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Tom O'Donnell]

Greta Thunberg: It's time to overthrow the West's oppressive and racist capitalist system (msn.com)

Wow, she's a Far Leftist. Who would have guessed?

[Bob Armstrong]

FACT: A significant majority on the planet accept the global "Mainstream" thesis that the most significant contributor to greenhouse gases forming a non-porous canopy around the Earth is MAN (Not nature) and his technology. This group also holds that to avoid species suicide, radical societal change in the economy is necessary to ELIMINATE this spewing of gases into the air/atmosphere.

Problem: Ever since the negative climate change issue came onto the radar decades ago, governments (Read Political Parties), nearly all based on Capitalism, have been totally (almost) unwilling (Not unable) to make these necessary societal and economic changes..........they have missed, time and again, solution targets (2015 Paris Accord).

Solution: New Global political parties must be elected who understand the problem, are not beholden to the oligarchs, who are inhibiting change in their own self-interest, and who promise (And WILL) make the necessary legal radical change that will save the human species. It is in this train of thought that Greta Thunberg, a major influencer on negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC), resides.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Dilip Panjwani]

FACT:
Problem:
Solution:

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

FACT: Bob, the doom and gloom scenario that you are so anxious about, is simply a hypothetical possibility ... just a theory, not a fact ...
Problem: The climate-activists are trying to impose regulations upon others that the vast majority (including the activists themelves) do not want to suffer from...
Solution: The activists should agree to an honest debate about the likelihood / unlikelihood of their doom and gloom scenario and its preventability.

[Bob Armstrong]

World Action on Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change?

COP 27 - Egypt - Commences Today (Sat., Nov. 5, 2022)

"Rich countries must sign a “historic pact” with the poor over the consequences of global warming or “we will be doomed.” This was the warning of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres as world leaders gather this weekend for the global climate conference in Egypt."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsl...Aftxf31fl28fAg

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Following up on Sid's post # 905 on projected temperatures due to "global warming":

The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming: its projection of a rise of 1.5°C being the maximum possible to avoid catastrophe uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. There is some pressure to change this baseline pre-industrial period:

BBC News - Jan 25, 2017 — [Some] scientists suggest pushing back a baseline from which to judge human influence on the climate to 1720-1800.

But the initial period still seems to be the one currently in use.

I take it this means that this pre-industrial baseline date has a zero for temperature rise. And the rise is then calculated from zero.......thus we come to the claimed cap required on temperature rise of 1.5 C from the baseline date.

But I have not been able to find the exact absolute temperature that this fixes for the start of calculating.......can anyone help on this?

The majority position seems to be that warming reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017. At the present rate, global temperatures would reach 1.5°C around 2040. By then, we must have stopped greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently (With other strategies, such as carbon recovery) that the temperature of the air/atmosphere then levels off, and hopefully then begins to drop, to avoid eventual human extinction.

Another group paints a slightly worse calculation. A new analysis by an international team of researchers concludes that 2015 was likely the first time in recorded history that global temperatures were more than 1C above pre-industrial levels (Earlier than the above estimate that we didn't surpass 1% C rise until 2017.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/challeng...ndustrial-era/

My Question:

There are those that argue that current global temperature increase is mainly due to a current naturally-occurring, millennia-long "warming cycle".

Do these "Natural Climate Change Supporters" agree:

1. As to the average temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere from 1850 - 1900 as calculated by the "Anthropogenic Climate Change Supporters" (Whatever that average temperature is when we find it in all the plethora of papers and news reports)?

2. That the rise from the pre-industrial baseline date to they year 2017 was indeed 1% (regardless of whether this rise is attributed to natural causes, or human economic activity)?

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Following up on Sid's post # 905 on projected temperatures due to "global warming":

The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming: its projection of a rise of 1.5°C being the maximum possible to avoid catastrophe uses the reference period 1850–1900 to represent pre-industrial temperature. There is some pressure to change this baseline pre-industrial period:

BBC News - Jan 25, 2017 — [Some] scientists suggest pushing back a baseline from which to judge human influence on the climate to 1720-1800.

But the initial period still seems to be the one currently in use.

I take it this means that this pre-industrial baseline date has a zero for temperature rise. And the rise is then calculated from zero.......thus we come to the claimed cap required on temperature rise of 1.5 C from the baseline date.

But I have not been able to find the exact absolute temperature that this fixes for the start of calculating.......can anyone help on this?

The majority position seems to be that warming reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017. At the present rate, global temperatures would reach 1.5°C around 2040. By then, we must have stopped greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently (With other strategies, such as carbon recovery) that the temperature of the air/atmosphere then levels off, and hopefully then begins to drop, to avoid eventual human extinction.

Another group paints a slightly worse calculation. A new analysis by an international team of researchers concludes that 2015 was likely the first time in recorded history that global temperatures were more than 1C above pre-industrial levels (Earlier than the above estimate that we didn't surpass 1% C rise until 2017.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/challeng...ndustrial-era/

My Question:

There are those that argue that current global temperature increase is mainly due to a current naturally-occurring, millennia-long "warming cycle".

Do these "Natural Climate Change Supporters" agree:

1. As to the average temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere from 1850 - 1900 as calculated by the "Anthropogenic Climate Change Supporters" (Whatever that average temperature is when we find it in all the plethora of papers and news reports)?

2. That the rise from the pre-industrial baseline date to they year 2017 was indeed 1% (regardless of whether this rise is attributed to natural causes, or human economic activity)?

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

The accuracy of proxy temperatures used for his GAST record and the temporal resolution of temperature proxy reconstructions is very poor, so the sort of “Hockey Stick” graph that alarmists often present has little impact on me; in any case, a rise of one degree in 167 years is not alarming.

"A proper comparison of warming or cooling rates between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and any period prior to 1900 will probably never be possible, short of dramatic improvements in proxies or proxy technology."

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/20...constructions/


Here is a debate from earlier this year. I have reservations about the mainstream being truly reflective of people's mental models once both sides are presented.
This was the result:

[Bob Armstrong]

What I understand from the debate so far, and it has evolved here (this is good!) with more evidence on certain issues:

1. In Post # 907 above, Sid advised that the Negative Natural Climate Change position is that there has been about a 1C rise in temperature from 1850 to 2017 (167 years) and this is NOT alarming. The negative anthropogenic climate change position agrees with the calculation. But it claims this rise IS alarming, and has put us on a suicidal path, given future heat rise, based on current projection. This current projection is considered invalid by the "Natural"Climate Changers - see below.

2. There has been since about 2000 to 2022, a rise of only 0.15C, according to the Natural CC'ers . This is just a result of the natural cycle (Not human economic activity) and is NOT alarming (See Sid's post # 905). I have not been able to find whether the Anthropogenic CC'ers agree with this as a factual calculation. Can anyone help on this?

3. Based on the 2000 to 2022 rise as calculated by the Natural CC'ers (0.15C), the rise in heat from 2022 to 2122 is projected to be less than 1C. In contrast, the Anthropogenic CC'ers project that there will be, according to the IPCC, an increase of over 2C by 2099, on current trajectory evidence. This is where there is dramatic conflict between the two positions.

4. It appears that the Natural CC'ers hold that the methodology used by the IPCC to do the projection is flawed. They cherry pick worst case scenarios in their calculations. The Anthropogenic CC'ers claim the Natural CC'ers methodology uses best case scenarios, and is unwilling to recognize the extent that human economic activity is driving the current increase in heat, by contributing significantly to the worsening of the non-porous canopy around earth by the spewing of Greenhouse Gases into the air/atmosphere.

It seems to me to be a very technical issue with respect to the projections. I'm sure the calculations, and deciding on the data usable in making these calculations, is quite complicated. It is all being done by computer programs and computer modelling.

If anyone can simplify a bit the two conflicting calculation methods, and where they differ, it would help a lot. Not sure this is even possible, so laypeople could understand wherein the problem lies here.

But........subject to objection to any of the above, I think we CT'ers have here made some progress so far in better understanding the climate change dispute.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Sid advised that the Negative Natural Climate Change position is that there has been about a 1C

I did say 1 degree in 167 years is not considered alarming, assuming that is the case. We just don't have a reliable way of knowing the temp when you get into the pre instrument era before 1900.

If anyone can simplify a bit the two conflicting calculation methods, and where they differ, it would help a lot. Not sure this is even possible, so laypeople could understand wherein the problem lies here.

The position stated by Dr. Kunin in the debate says even if the temp change was several times (!) greater than 2 degrees he does not consider it cause for alarm as per his presentation. So it is a moot point as far as this is concerened.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The accuracy of proxy temperatures used for his GAST record and the temporal resolution of temperature proxy reconstructions is very poor, so the sort of “Hockey Stick” graph that alarmists often present has little impact on me; in any case, a rise of one degree in 167 years is not alarming.

"A proper comparison of warming or cooling rates between the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and any period prior to 1900 will probably never be possible, short of dramatic improvements in proxies or proxy technology."

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/20...constructions/


Here is a debate from earlier this year. I have reservations about the mainstream being truly reflective of people's mental models once both sides are presented.
This was the result:

Thanks for posting the debate video, Sid.
I hope it relieves quite a bit of Bob's anxiety...

[Bob Armstrong]

The point is moot?:

Whether the temperature rise from the baseline to 2099 is over 2C or over 6C (Using 3X; Dr. Kunin: ... several times (!) greater than 2 degrees is not cause for alarm".)???

I will watch the debate video, as both Sid and Dilip have urged........

Initially, I find this position astounding!

We are already seeing geographical results of the current rise in temperature since the baseline date (Assuming it has been less than 1.C - the Naturalists' position, or, over 1C - the Anthropogenic's position)......flooding shorelines; wild fires; weather extremes; polar melting; climate refugees; etc.

We can argue over the projected temperature rise from 2022 to 2099 or 2122, and can criticize the others calculation formulae and computer modelling - but can all the disasters due to weather extremes that we now see all only be "naturally-caused"??? Nothing to do with agreed-upon rising temperature in Earth's air/atmosphere due to man's economic activity (The Naturalist position is that Nature is causing nearly all the warming, and what man is contributing is negligible???

As I say......astounding position........

I am open, however, to try to understand further the position of the "Naturalists"........I will not just go away.....I believe in dialogue, and I believe the CT'ers dialogue here on CT has helped immensely in our understanding better, climate change, and the opposing positions of the "Anthropogenicists" and the "Naturalists".

We'll keep at it........at least I will.

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

As I say......astounding position........

This previous post https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...016#post222016 shows
why increased carbon emissions do not significantly drive climate change. Therefore we have no control over the climate as far as attempting to use CO2 as a control button for controlling climate.
As stated before, I am a big fan of nuclear energy as a solution to reducing pollution, but even if we went all nuclear, it would not impact the climate one iota.

[Neil Frarey]

I thought you might already have known that our planet is cooling down faster and NOT heating up sooner.

https://www.dw.com/en/earths-core-ma...ght/a-60501862

And if you remember anything about natural global moving air ... atmospheric circulation ... and plate tectonics ... well then, you're welcome to close this thread.

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

Week # 45 (22/11/1 – 7 – 7 days)

Weekly Stats:
.....................................................2022 Average..........................................................2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(44 wks.)........Responses/Day....Resp./Day......... (44 wks.).

...46..........................45..........................48........................2....................3.........................3.........

Analysis of Last Weeks Stats

Activity last week shows consistency with respect to this week, last week, and the average throughout 2022 so far. The thread is remaining of high interest to the core group of CT'ers following it!

Will we see new CT'ers coming to view this thread, with COP27 (Egypt) underway? We'll see..

Climate Change Thread “Responses

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada re wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note: I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025! Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity. And it has now become clear that the more deadly greenhouse gas is Methane, and countries' last year agreement on its reduction are on the table this year again!

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?

CT'ers' Local Actions on Climate Change

You can do something! When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

~ Bob (T-S/P)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

Greenhouse Gases - Methane

"Methane is a greenhouse gas that’s estimated to be 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...kz5OT1rEWPFlu4

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

[Sid Belzberg]

Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC)

Greenhouse Gases - Methane

"Methane is a greenhouse gas that’s estimated to be 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...kz5OT1rEWPFlu4

~ Bob A (T-S/P)

No, this is also a falsehood. Here is the physical proof.

https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.c...ncy.pdf?x45936

Conclusion
"The most striking fact about radiation transfer in Earth’s atmosphere is summarized by Fig. 3. Doubling the current concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, N2O and CH4 increases the forcings by a few percent for cloud-free parts of the atmosphere."

Methane CH4 is completely irrelevant in this chart.