Robert Scribbler

Complex problems are not always simple to explain. I sell data about complex social systems and I've found that when my customers are finally deciding whether to buy or not, only very rarely do they want to look at numbers. They want the story and solutions. They want the product. A marketing team that tries to get Americans to remember specific figures about climate change is not going to be effective. There are ways to do it - Gore's Inconvenient Truth did a good job of visualizing global warming in a way that made sense and could be plainly understood without a scientific background.

Also, scientists are not marketers. They might present at technical conferences, maybe TED, or other occasional larger venues, but for the most part they hunt for funding, do their research and publish in academic journals full of jargon and abstract formulas. They're not trained to reach the public. Some nonprofits seem to be picking up the marketing torch but that's only started in the last decade or two and the result has been massive pushback by climate change deniers. Strategies for concisely expressing the issue are still being worked out.

Personally, I would love to spend a few weeks reading major reports on climate change so I could better understand the precise scope of contemporary research and help provide some of these answers to you and others who are skeptical (or talk myself out of it if need be). My life isn't there yet, though. I know very few people who have that capacity…

I go with limits of growth, as it has been shown to fit the last 30 years.

http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf

I also think Guy McPhearson is right in many aspects:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=guy+mcpherson

The IPCC thinks its mostly linear, does not look linear (follow the links):

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35975-arctic-sea-ice-could-disappear-this-summer

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/05/02/arctic-sea-ice-is-falling-off-a-cliff-and-it-may-not-survive-the-summer/

(I can't find a 'wonderful' video I saw lately showing the monthly losses over the years...)

Then methanhydrate, IPCC, hello ???

The ignorance is partially unbelievable. So, to answer your question:

Can we safe the planet - Not with the attitude most of us and even most in science have. Robert Boyle would turn in his grave if he would hear the arguments some people make.

From my "crackpot" perspective, we can safe the planet, I even know how - but as I don't have the finential liquidity for the experiments and the team to do so and looking at the world as a large: the answer is no.

To be honest, I think the human being is intrinsically a good being (experience as a long vipassana meditator), but our society is so fked up, I quite often think it would be better for the galaxy.
At least we are not capable of doing real damage to a galaxy and are incapable of infecting other lifespawners (planets that create high level…

> Climate science is nowhere near that accurate

The range is accurate enough to know the problems. We even know that the effects will have a very long time span, certainly longer than a few hundred years during which we've released so much CO2.

Those that demand "accuracy" expect to receive one line and not the range. Which less changes how much our children will suffer, and even less for children of our children, only more for us who are old enough to die before the bigger effects come.

"After me the floods" is immensely selfish to those that follow us.

> And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the last few hundred million years were much higher than now.

To compare, that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern mammals started to develop!

The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of years to form. The immense part of that is already now burnt in just around hundred years. Note the difference in magnitudes.

And comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!) IPCC predictions:

http://robertscribbler.com/2014/04/11/world-co2-averages-touch-402-2-ppm-daily-values-in-early-april-102-ppm-higher-than-at-any-time-in-last-800000-years/

Are you trolling us? 97% of climate scientists agree that the global is warming and that humans are the cause of this warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

Before it was the warmest March on record it was the warmest February:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/february-smashes-earths-alltime-global-heat-record-by-a-jawdropping

Oh, and it was the warmest January:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/02/17/january_2016_was_the_hottest_january_on_record.html

Oh and 2015 was the warmest year on record:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-2015-became-the-hottest-year-on-record

Chart of temps from 1880:

http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/2c-2016-02.png

CO2 is at 408ppm and climbing as it nears it's seasonal peak.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

This is a level not seen in the past 15 million years

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/04/11/hothouse-gas-spikes-to-extreme-409-3-parts-per-million-on-april-10-record-rate-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-likely-for-2016/#comment-74587

Here's a chart that looks at some other greenhouse gases, such as methane.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

The effects we're feeling in the South US are mostly from the La Nina[1], but there is actually something interesting happening with the Arctic ice this winter. It's still below zero up there, but we might end up with a northern channel in about 4 years if it stays this warm. It isn't just about the ice that has formed, but the speed that it's forming. It's significantly slower than recent years[2]. This was caused in part from storms[3], so now the rapidly warming temperatures can cascade in the next years with darker water and thinner ice. Also, the methane crater explosions in Sibera can't be helping...[4]

[1]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/la-nina-arrives/

[2]http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/11/Figure2a.png

[3]https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms-sparked-severe-polar-warming-sea-ice-melt-for-november-2016/

[4]http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding-permafrost-methane-craters-global-warming-2016-6

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/29/carbon-monoxide-spikes-to-34000-parts-per-billion-over-california-on-february-26-what-the-heck-is-going-on/

Article discussing the data with this tl;dr quote:

"Earth Nullschool — the site that produces the above satellite data has listed a final confirmation. The measure used to interpret atmospheric data was in the process of being re-calibrated and produced a stronger than typical signal. In other words, high CO readings for this region were a glitch"