[Grizzly]

Ultimately, does it really matter all that much whether climate change is due to humanity's actions? Fact of the matter is that climate change is real, and we do need to figure out ways to deal with the consequences.

It does. If climate change is caused by human actions, reducing those actions would make the problems that arise easier to deal with in the long run.

[Luis Dias]

Just to% point out that the 97% argument shouldn't be important at all, but I'm afraid it is. Obama has used it repeatedly, Kerry used it too, all the media uses it (the BBC used it as the justification to cull every skeptic from its discussions live), even liberal comedians use it (do I need to post that funny Oliver Last Week Tonight sketch where he put 15 scientists debating just one skeptic because 97%?).

The idea is to put the question to rest and start the conversation about what to do about it. If we have people constantly telling us there's no problem to begin with, what conversations are even possible to make regarding what to do about it? I understand the frustration perfectly and so we had lots of "arguments" like these before, which were about the "consensus", how "every" scientist agrees, therefore its true, etc. This is why the IPCC was built in the first place, to build this consensus! But as been pointed out, this consensus is one without an object. 97% of scientists agree that the planet is warming and that humans influenced this warming. This is it. This is the big consensus, and yet, we see the whole activismsphere banging on how the 97% agree that the "problem" is "real", only bad bad conservatives disagree, and oil companies and so on and so on (I find it funny that skeptics are diagnosed as paranoid about big government or intellectuals and so on, and then we get all the clichés about the big oil companies destroying the science debate and so on. Are you just able to see the other's paranoia?).

Meanwhile anyone who is a lot more nuanced about the subject (say Lomborg or Pielke) are constantly being thrown under the bus with slimy lies, innuendos, misinterpretations, libel, mob attacks, and so on. So no wonder all we get is either the skydragons (those who even deny there's such a thing as the greenhouse effect) or the armaggedon the-end-is-nigh preachers of doom. And even when the discussion is taken place with much more nuanced and mild-mannered people, the discussion is always triggered by the "who's in what tribe" brain cell.

[Grizzly]

Meanwhile anyone who is a lot more nuanced about the subject (say Lomborg or Pielke) are constantly being thrown under the bus with slimy lies, innuendos, misinterpretations, libel, mob attacks, and so on.

I never hear about these people or this phenonom

[watsisname]

My recollection of the discussion history is that certain climate change skeptics began asserting that the 'jury was out'; i.e. those who actively study climate science were not in good agreement about whether it was real or whether it was due primarily to human activity, yet the fact of the matter is that there is very good agreement, as seen by viewing literature.  Yes, there are some who disagree and to varying extent, but not anything like what skeptics have been trying to say.  When this is pointed out to them, certain skeptics reply "Reality isn't determined by consensus!"  And they're right.

Taken like this, it seems like really ****ty discussion technique.  But one must also note that it's not like there's one participant for either side of the discussion, and grouping them together as if they're all saying the same line causes a lot of this sort of trouble.  Who is responding to whom and why sort of thing.

[WheelSpin]

This news caused a big stink at a far-less-intelligent forum I visit, with the usual suspects trumpeting ZOMG GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE AFTER ALL!!1

I have yet to see anything to conlusively, unequivocally prove that humans are exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of any warming phenomenon.  Likewise, I don't subscribe to the mainstream uniformitarianism model concernig geophysical phenomenon.

We're still on the low side of the learning curve on how it all fits together, & climate charletons are whipping up fear & false data, & making a killing off of fools who buy into it.  "Climate change ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!". Pro tip: natural phenomena (eg. climate) tend to be dynamic.

Maybe that's because it's been said from the start that humans are NOT exclusively or overwhelmingly the cause of it. It's claimed that human activity accelerates it. I'm not a climatologist, so I cannot say with any certainty whether that is true or not, but common sense suggests to me that pumping millions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere each year cannot be a good thing, if not for climate reasons then at least for health ones.

What worries me more is the concept that, even if we aren't accelerating it, that it is somehow an excuse to not do anything about it.

I am not in disagreement with the premise that human activity is potentially influencing global climate.  However, I do question the supposed urgency that self-styled "climate prophets" have portrayed, in part due to the hypocrisy of their personal lifestyles, as well as the aforementioned politicalization of the debate.

I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change".  So now the climate should just not change.  Nice.  The earth experinced an ice age period without any industrial influence, but humanity is the devil.  I'm not sure how Al Gore & co.  could ever wrap their brains around natural climate-altering events like Chicxulub, Toba, Yellowstone, or even just a Pinatubo event in this context.  Come to think of it, they don't...

I'm still not gonna buy a Prius, & Al is still gonna travel around in his private jet & shill carbon credits.

[Grizzly]

also find it curious that it's no longer about 'warming", but rather "climate change".  So now the climate should just not change.

Nah, the term was chosen because some people pointed out that the earth did not, in fact, warm for everybody. Earth's average temperature does rise, but in some areas of the world, this has a cooling effect due to disruption of current gulf and jetstreams.

The earth experinced an ice age period without any industrial influence, but humanity is the devil.

http://xkcd.com/1379/.

I'm not sure how Al Gore & co.  could ever wrap their brains around natural climate-altering events like Chicxulub, Toba, Yellowstone, or even just a Pinatubo event in this context.  Come to think of it, they don't...

I'm still not gonna buy a Prius, & Al is still gonna travel around in his private jet & shill carbon credits.

Al Gore's statements and human forcing are two completely different things and bear no relation to eachother whatsoever. Al Gore's possible hipocrisy (I do not know the man and therefore can not judge him) has no bearing on whether or not climate change is actually a thing or not.

[WheelSpin]

Human energy consumption is continuously rising.  People need to get a grip when it comes to energy policy, simply because there is no such thing as "clean" energy as the PR would have us believe (electricity included).

As an example, thorium-based molten salt reactors are a viable alternative to coal-fired power production, but since nuclear power is the bogeyman, we stay stuck with the status quo.  Everybody talks a good game about alternatives, but most of the popular alternatives are insufficient to meet demand, & those that are get deemed as unacceptable for not being "perfect".  There is no perfect solution.

Finally, hypocrisy speaks volumes.  If the messenger won't heed his own message...

[watsisname]

I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change".

Very common statement; very common misunderstanding of what the terminology means and how/why they are used.

"Global warming" refers to the increase in the global average surface temperature of a planet in response to an increase in the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.  This is very simple physics and has been understood for over a century.

"Climate change" refers to the changes in climate variables as a consequence of global warming.  This includes such things as regional temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, max/min temperature, boundary layer height, cloud properties, relative humidity, etc.  These changes are extremely challenging to determine, and are proceeding about as rapidly as our ability to study and comprehend them.  Thus this is where the majority of scientific focus lies, and so when examining literature, you find the term 'climate change' a lot more often than 'global warming'.

Added:

So now the climate should just not change. [etc]

I literally do not know of a single climate scientist who thinks Earth's climate has never changed before, or has no understanding of the drivers of those changes.  I would recommend reviewing my post on mechanisms and timescales..  If you would like to learn about the science more directly, consider changing your sources from "Al Gore and co." to those who are actually active publishers in journals of climate science.

[karajorma]

I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but rather "climate change".

While the scientific answer you've already received is correct, another reason for the change was too many idiots saying "It's cold, so much for global warning" as if

1) It was funny
2) It was original
3) The local temperature was in any way representative of global temps.

[WheelSpin]

I also find it curious that it's no longer about "warming", but byrather "climate change".

Very common statement; very common misunderstanding of what the terminology means and how/why they are used.

"Global warming" refers to the increase in the global average surface temperature of a planet in response to an increase in the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.  This is very simple physics and has been understood for over a century.

"Climate change" refers to the changes in climate variables as a consequence of global warming.  This includes such things as regional temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, max/min temperature, boundary layer height, cloud properties, relative humidity, etc.  These changes are extremely challenging to determine, and are proceeding about as rapidly as our ability to study and comprehend them.  Thus this is where the majority of scientific focus lies, and so when examining literature, you find the term 'climate change' a lot more often than 'global warming'.

Added:

So now the climate should just not change. [etc]

I literally do not know of a single climate scientist who thinks Earth's climate has never changed before, or has no understanding of the drivers of those changes.  I would recommend reviewing my post on mechanisms and timescales..  If you would like to learn about the science more directly, consider changing your sources from "Al Gore and co." to those who are actually active publishers in journals of climate science.

I didn't say scientists believe in static climate model.

But semantics aside, what's your solution?  Stop burning fossil fuels?  Not gonna happen anytime soon.  As I already pointed out, the so-called "green" alternatives won't meet demand, & the "evil" alternatives are unacceptable.

[watsisname]

Are you abandoning the topic of "semantics" because you realize your earlier portrayal of what climate scientists know about climate were formed out of ignorance? 

Added:
You have pointed out more than once in this thread that climate is dynamic and that there have been previous climate changes, as if those who study climate science do not realize this or do not understand their causes, or that this means we do not understand what is going on today, or that it is not of major concern.  This view is wrong and I believe you would benefit from refining the sources for your information -- learn about climate science from the scientists themselves.

As to your latest question, I do not think I am sufficiently well educated in the subjects of adaptation, mitigation, and energy policy to be qualified in producing 'my own solution' to the problem.  I defer to the judgement of those who are.

[Wobble73]

How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic  (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year, wind farms in places that have strong winds, tidal power plants, hydorelectric plants and (god forbid lol) well regulated, highly efficient nuclear power plants. Meanwhile profits are pumped into new renewable energy resources and research into cold fusion etc.

Just a thought?

[Beskargam]

I wonder if we will see international cooperation on issues such as climate during my lifetime. Or any matter now that I think about it.

[Dragon]

(god forbid lol) well regulated, highly efficient nuclear power plants.

If you have this, you don't need the others. Also, plating poles over with solar panels would damage the unique ecosystem there (an anywhere, for that matter), wind turbines play havoc with bird migration and hydroelectric plants require defacing the landscape with huge dams. Tidal power is only good on the shore, geothermal is even worse, because there's a lot less suitable spots for it. And none of them have the output of a nuke plant.

As for fusion, we're not pumping money into any sort of "cold fusion" scam. We're pumping it into ordinary, "hot" fusion, which is a perfectly good idea. Aside from incredibly powerful powerplants, it'd also be great for spacecraft propulsion. New renewables will probably run into similar problems as the old ones.

[jr2]

I think the situation with nuclear is similar to the irrational fear of flying - - statistically, aircraft travel is much dagger. Of the accidents, however, they are catastrophic and much more likely to be fatal if you are involved in one. The overall safety of both nuclear power  and aircraft travel is higher, but people freak out because, when things do manage to go wrong, they go very wrong. So, regardless of the actual safety, let's go with the less safe option because it's scary (media rather does not help this at all).

[watsisname]

How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic  (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year

While you do get approximately six months of daylight in the polar regions, the sun angle is pretty low, and you still have to deal with cloud cover.  Then there are the storms, which will increase maintenance/repair costs, which at the most remote parts of the globe, are going to be high to begin with.

A better bet would be to build in arid regions where the climate favors more cloud-free days, such as the Sahara.  Statistically I'd expect you'd get a much higher total annual solar flux than at the poles, and you could construct and run it more cheaply.

[jr2]

How many square feet of solar would it take to run a single home housing a family of four? Don't forget the AC, washer, drier, etc... And you say it's overcrowded NOW! Solar makes a nice supplement, IMHO. That is all though. Now try running a factory that heats material that is being extruded to 500 degrees.

[WheelSpin]

Are you abandoning the topic of "semantics" because you realize your earlier portrayal of what climate scientists know about climate were formed out of ignorance? 

Nope.

[WheelSpin]

How about mass solar power plants in the Artic and Antartic  (taking advantage of the six months of sunshine each half year) and throughout the Equator belt ensuring powr throughout the year

While you do get approximately six months of daylight in the polar regions, the sun angle is pretty low, and you still have to deal with cloud cover.  Then there are the storms, which will increase maintenance/repair costs, which at the most remote parts of the globe, are going to be high to begin with.

A better bet would be to build in arid regions where the climate favors more cloud-free days, such as the Sahara.  Statistically I'd expect you'd get a much higher total annual solar flux than at the poles, and you could construct and run it more cheaply.

Let's not forget the NIMBY phenomenon.  The late Ted Kennedy was all about wind farms as alternative power, except he didn't want them in his own backyard.

[Mongoose]

I think the situation with nuclear is similar to the irrational fear of flying - - statistically, aircraft travel is much dagger. Of the accidents, however, they are catastrophic and much more likely to be fatal if you are involved in one. The overall safety of both nuclear power  and aircraft travel is higher, but people freak out because, when things do manage to go wrong, they go very wrong. So, regardless of the actual safety, let's go with the less safe option because it's scary (media rather does not help this at all).

The thing is, though, with modern reactor designs, "very wrong" can't really happen outside of the most extreme circumstances.  Even Fukushima, the absolute worst case in recent times, running a relatively-outdated reactor, managed to survive a massive earthquake with the safety systems functioning properly...it was only the almost-unprecedented tsunami, coupled with the asinine placement of the diesel backup generators, that did it in.  The sheer amount of FUD surrounding nuclear power is just absurd.