LibertyBell

particularly when the models have been more conservative vs whats actually happening via sea level rise

and he doesn't address WHY we've had stronger el ninos more recently, the fact is that studies have connected that to AGW also.

I'm angry because these guys give a pass to the fossil fuel cartel, which is the single most corrupt industry on the planet right now. And that's saying a lot because pharma is right behind them.

if anything it's going to be worse than what the climate models show- look at the sea level rise forecasts, verification seems to be on the side of the more extreme climate models.

it's ridiculous. The rise in humidity and dew points only makes things FAR worse, as we've experienced here on the east coast. It traps pollutants closer to the ground and the air quality has been getting worse.

the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used makes it worse, that's a major reason why there is a diabetes pandemic going on in minority communities. More limbs have been lost to diabetes in the past 20 years than to being in the military. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/why-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-bad Read up. By the way artificial sweeteners have their own issues. Diet soda consumption isn't a good idea either, it affects the gut biome negatively. You might also be interested in this https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/books/salt-sugar-fat-by-michael-moss.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/23well.html Shows why obesity and diabetes type 2 have risen so quickly in the past 20 years. And a concurrent rise in insulin prices.....

I do too, but I believe it will require an entire reworking of society into something much more sustainable (that is work with nature, rather than against it.)

Yep, and people still argue about processed food and high fructose corn syrup, even though the twin pandemics of diabetes and obesity makes it all too clear. The more things change the more they stay the same.

I was actually referring to farm animals methane output which, if combined together adds up to being the third most emitting "country"- behind only China and the US. A forest is more helpful because trees are carbon sinks, that's why planting (many) more trees is a good idea- as is reducing humankind's biological footprint. Not to mention reducing air pollution by reversing urbanization.

I'm surprised people still argue about this. This was settled back in the 90s if I'm not mistaken, maybe even sooner. How long did the argument over the health risks of tobacco go on for, Don?

I'm surprised the NY Times didn't, they're pretty progressive on these topics! I saw an analysis that shows that climate change has caused more pollution over the LA region (more smog), and that was a few years ago, before these fires became so common.

One way or the other nature will take care it. It would behoove us to do it first, nature's method might not be too desirable for humanity heh.

The answer is more than just that. Human land use is also to blame- 1) is too much animal farming 2) human overpopulation creating dense population centers 3) GHG of course. It's all interrelated actually.

I hope you dont believe the fossil fuel cartel are the "good guys" here. They have plenty of skeletons in their closet and deserve to be taken down for it.

It also speaks volumes that the fossil fuel cartel tried to cover up the research. We've evolved beyond prove and need to decide how to punish them. NJ recently joined 19 other states in suing them to get funds that are needed to mitigate against sea level rise. I believe that, like the opioid class action, they will eventually win in court. Nothing would please me more than to bankrupt the fossil fuel cartel, a corrupt industry that makes even the drug cartels look good.

Are you familiar with the statistical analysis that was done that placed the nearly 20 degrees of warming in Siberia over 6 months to be over 99.9% more likely because of AGW? It wasn't just the extreme nature of the warming, it was also the extreme duration. Russia has got to be loving it- when Siberia becomes the world's new bread basket (which will happen within a few decades at most), that means a lot more money for them.

we see signs of it already at JFK.....it became only the second location (besides Norfolk I think) to have an 40 degree avg winter temp and 40 inches of snowfall in the same winter (most of it came in that 30+ inch snowfall in January) in 2015-16.

how do you explain what's been going on in Siberia? UHI there too eh?

when do you think we'll have the majority of summers in NYC reaching 100 degrees?

Hey I'm a Gen Xer (but do identify more with Millenials)......maybe it's my/our Long Island/NY education that has us ahead of the field? You look at what the fossil fuel industry and how it controls the education system and political system in some parts of the country- and it's positively criminal (or should be.) F it, we knew about climate change even back in the 80s, and I remember writing a sci fi story back in the 1980s about saying good bye to Long Island as we boarded the last ship off the island as it went underwater and we were the last people left.

when you look at climate models and predicted sea level rise and compare it vs whats actually occurring, the actual sea level rise is near the more extreme scenarios....we've already had a 1 ft sea level rise and if we continue to stay near the values predicted by the more extreme scenarios we'll add 3 more feet to that by 2070 and up to 8 feet by 2100. Some areas are experiencing sea level rise quicker than others (most notably the US east coast and the gulf coast.) Sunny day flooding has become a reality here on the south shore of Long Island.....

yes and the oceans are getting hotter also.

and mass extinctions happened back then too, just like we are having now.

I think the biggest proof is that anthropogenic climate change has occurred much faster than any "natural" climate change occurred in the past and the current mass extinction..... and here's something more philosophical and even more sobering..... Scientists are puzzled about why we haven't found any signs of life elsewhere in the universe (we should now be able to detect inadvertent signals sent out from technology). I have a scary thought that I've had for years but seems to be becoming more and more likely......what if technological life almost always goes down the same road....to destruction? Billions of possible earthlike planets out there and what if 99.999999999999% of them have the same sad outcome, technological evolution almost inevitably leading to self destruction? I see us heading down that way too, I have for years, but with even more certainty now. The Great Filter isn't behind us, it's staring us right in the face and if we are like most, we will suffer the same sad result. In the end that result may be for the best though, as the planet would almost certainly recover from we've been doing to it since the industrial age began.

I'm amazed people like him devote so much time and energy to something that is so awful.