"He asserts that climate change is naturally caused, as part of the climate's cyclical nature."
So you are, like many people, misunderstand him, and many other people like him, that they don't deny climate change, but just aren't convinced that it is primarily caused by humans.
There is actually no scientific data that proofs the idea that humans are the primary cause of climate change, so it is still an open question, and therefore different beliefs about it should be respected.
But it's such a controversial and sensitive topic, that many people don't even want to be open to another perspective, which is sad.
“there are five clear stages of climate denial: arguing that climate change is not real, that humans are not to blame, that climate change will be a positive force, that it will be too expensive to fix, arguing it will be too late to tackle it. ”
So then you come with a campaign article backed by celebs? Where is the actual scientific data? Data that it is a clear indicator that climate change is driven by human actions?
I would rather say these people are science deniers.
* Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products.
* Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples.
These are evidence of human activity .. you understand isotopes 'n stuff, right?
They fingerprint sources.
I suggest you read the IPCC reports and some of the primary works - you'll have a better understanding and maybe refrain from saying silly things like your comment above.
Even Spann has changed tone:
in more recent years Spann has taken a more publicly neutral stance on the topic, refraining from going in-depth when pressed about climate change in more recent interviews.[citation needed] In a VICE news interview in 2018, Spann told the host that "I do weather, not climate" and that they should "ask a climatologist" for more information.
Spann's original viewpoints have been criticized by many in the meteorology community. In a blog post for Inside Climate News, Katherine Bagley explained that the short-term models used by many TV weather forecasters are too short-term to demonstrate long-term climate patterns, and that most meteorology degrees do not include any education on climate or climate change.
Yeah, well I think that Spann, like many other scientists, just don't want to talk about it because they'll get canceled, lose their career. That has happened to quite a few critically independently thinking scientists. So I understand very well Spann's position on this.
* Records of fossil fuel extraction volumes and knowledge of by products.
Yes, ok, humans have been extracting resources, but how are we sure this is driving climate change?
* Atmospheric "libraries" that have documented the increase in greenhouse gases, coupled with proxy trapped atmospheric samples.
Yeah, the climate is changing, but how are we sure this is driven by humans?
I guess you think that if they happen at the same time, one must be the cause for the other, which is a logical way of thinking, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Just like there are many variables that drive the weather, there are many variables that drive climate change. And we just don't really have good data to know if the human variable is significantly high that we can easily influence it.
> but how are we sure this is driving climate change
Because we have released enough to substantially alter an approx 200K year gas balance.
Our current yearly release of of carbon dioxide is ~35 billion tonnes. The mean annual release from (say) volcanos is 180 - 440 million tonnes per year.
The human release is additional over and above the standard land|air carbon cycle that's been globally stable for millenia.
This is substantial additional insulation which traps more heat energy.
We have released as much GHG in a century as was released in the Siberian Traps.
> Yeah, the climate is changing, but are we sure this is driven by humans?
Yes. Absolutely.
> I guess you think that if they happen at the same time, one must be the cause for the other
You guess wrong. I look for a mechanism that connects events, a lever if you will. In this case the laws of thermodynamics, heat equations, and the balance between incoming solar energy and radiated outwards heat energy.
This has been covered extensively in geophysical literature.
> And we just don't really have good data to know ..
We have excellent data. More than sufficient.
Seriously, exert some effort, learn something of the sunject domain before spouting all this unfounded nonsense.
Maybe read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity
It's a good paper, I read it back in 1980 when I was first interested in geophysical exploration and modelling, which I did for two decades for oil, gas, and mineral exploration.
Well yeah there seems to be a corrolation to CO2 and temperature in many studies, and I do certainly believe it is related in some way. But at the same time there are many conflicting study results and I don't think the science on this is set at all.
I do think a lot of measurements (as in "actions") being taken are very positive, I just think it's for the wrong reasons. The thing about CO2 is that you can easily measure it and tax it. But I think the real issue is our use of exhaustible and polluting resources. We should move to renewable and inexhaustible resources for the reason that we don't pollute our environment any further so we can keep living. If taxing CO2 does the trick that's fine with me, but to be honest I think there's a lot of weird political games going on. I also think there have been many scientific discoveries that have been held back by the ones who are profiting from the current setup, and don't want new innovations to revolutionize our industry. But I also believe that with the global interconnected world it won't be possible to hold these things back and we will soon get new revelations about energy solutions.
Let's say we'll see what happens. Thanks for willing to discuss these issues with me :)
> and I don't think the science on this is set at all.
It absolutely is.
There are also a number of denialist blogs funded by Heritage Foundation et al that spend a great deal of effort confusing people and putting out the false message that the science isn't set.
I spent two decades in exploration geophysics mapping global mineral and energy resources for major resource companies. I also spent some time on a global scale volumetric "spreadsheet" application (ERMapper) for stitching raw data, mosaicing sat imagery, performing earth scale magnetic, gravitational, radiometric, et al computations.
What is your background in earth sciences?
> to be honest I think there's a lot of weird political games going on.
More driven by corporate lobbyists than political positions.
Those onside with large corporate entities want to either ignore climate action or to support ineffective policy (of which there are many shades) - CO2 credits are ripe for abuse, companies can continue emmitting in exchange for kicking small sums towards ineffective programs (planting trees cut down last year, sequesting a tiny amount of carbon down boreholes that are extracting vast amounts, etc).
There are also many people that feel overwhelmed and will back bad policy because they want to do something, anything, and either don't recognise bad policy for what it is or feel that any action is better than no action.
> “What do all these stages have in common?” Prof Hayhoe asked. “They all accomplish the same goal. The goal is the important thing – it doesn’t matter what you say, it is the goal that matters. And what is the goal? No climate action.”
Which doesn't make sense. The climate could be changing due to natural causes, but we could still want to have influence on it. One doesn't exclude the other. But this woman wants to make everyone that doesn't think the same way as them to be viewed as "deniers" or something else like "conspiracy theorist" or whatever. It's a campaign, it's not science.
"He asserts that climate change is naturally caused, as part of the climate's cyclical nature."
So you are, like many people, misunderstand him, and many other people like him, that they don't deny climate change, but just aren't convinced that it is primarily caused by humans.
There is actually no scientific data that proofs the idea that humans are the primary cause of climate change, so it is still an open question, and therefore different beliefs about it should be respected.
But it's such a controversial and sensitive topic, that many people don't even want to be open to another perspective, which is sad.