Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)

EDIT (2019-08-30) - please keep strictly to discussion on science, technology and practical issues and avoid politics, to keep within what is allowed in the Off Topic forums.

Global warming denialists have spent several years trumpeting the fact that the hottest year since records began was 1998 (such a long time ago on the scale of global warming, lol) ignoring the far more relevant fact that almost all of the hottest years ever have been in recent years.

Unfortunately, they now need to deal with the fact that 2014 was the hottest year since records began, which makes their habitual denial that global warming is happening look even more foolish. Funny thing is, these hottest years since records began keep occurring over the last century. Could it be something to do with the fact that warming is occurring, and temperatures are going UP, despite what denialists say?

As for the fluctuations in the upward trend: it is now clear that these are largely explained by fluctuations in the huge amount of heat that is going into the oceans, as more detailed data is making clear.

This is BAD news, so it is good that the recent UN Climate Summit and Climate Change Conference have made slightly more progress toward averting disaster.

Interesting. I believe it is generally accepted now that global warming exists. The only denialists now are people in the industries where unrenewable resources are their major source of money, and people who are generally ignorant.

As soon as everyone admits we have a problem, these industries will massively decline as people will begin the frantic search for green energy. Those people who are rich, at the top of these industries, do not care about the state of the Earth. They are only thinking of themselves, and how well they can spend their lives. Thus, these people will continue to argue against global warming until they retire.

Nice post.

p.s. How long until we find out RPaulB is a global warming denialist? 

Is global warming man made or the natural cycle of the planet?

The science leads to the clear conclusion that it is largely caused by humans and that there is no reason to believe it is a natural cycle. The simplest reason is the speed of change, but it is understanding of the mechanism of warming that is the most convincing.

In terms of risk management, certainty of disaster is not even close to being a requirement in any case: dealing with a 95% chance of disaster in a specific scenario ("business as usual") is not significantly different to dealing with a 100% chance of disaster in that scenario: in both cases the only sane course of action is to avoid that scenario.

Thanks, elroch, ive never been sure, but I am sure that you won't get people to give up the conveniences and standard of living they are used to in any way that could help the planet. Its much easier not to have air conditioning etc at all than to have it and give it up. Where do you even start?

Well, it is necessary for there to be global agreement based on the objective facts. Intelligent people can see that the benefit of burning fuel without constraint now has to be balanced against potential huge harm to the world of our descendents. 2014 has seen more extensive agreement than ever before. But it is still way short of what is necessary, with some countries lagging way behind Europe in their commitment.

Developing economies want the benefits that western economies have enjoyed for years, I dont see they will limit their use of energy because of climatd change...?

The answer is that quite a few people are intelligent enough to see that disaster in the long term is too high a price to pay. In general, people only convince themselves that "business as usual" is ok by fooling themselves about the long term consequences. It is true that the developed world has to lead the transition: it is where most of the emissions come from anyhow (Europe + North America + Japan alone is more than half, I think).

It's a bit like if someone likes doing something but it is known to reduce their life expectancy by 20 years. Quite a few people would make the decision that it is not worth it.

In the case of global warming, an unpleasant aspect is that those who will suffer are mostly those in future generations, which means self-interest alone is not sufficient motivation. But most people agree the future of humanity and the living world is important as well as their own life.

A map of CO2 emissions shows that the "first world" (plus China, India, Brazil) carries the main burden. Moreover, that is where by far the highest emissions per person are to be found. (Clickable map)

Yes, because the impact is on them personally and affects them directly. Its different if its more of an abstract concept and causes inconvenience. Especially if some are doing the right thing but millions of others are not.

CO2 emissions per capita is a more striking demonstration of why some countries choose short term self-interest at the cost of global harm. North America, Australia and Russia are about twice as damaging in their use as Europe, China, Mexico and South America. (Clickable)

Norway/Sweden is surprising.

You thought they would use more?

They have very high standards for buildings and strong environmental policies. [They are rich and near the top of the list of perceived well-being, which shows there is no compromise needed].

Greenland surprised me! (Also India, to a lesser extent)

That well-known denier 87654321 has now been been received the wonderful insight that if you cherry pick a seven year period from 2001 to 2008, fit a linear regression line which has got such large uncertainty that the slope is laughably irrelevant, ignore all data before 2001 and all data after 2008 that you can provide support for an ignorant political position. See this page for the comical post!

Perhaps it could be used as a amusing example in teaching students what not to do with data?

Statistics prove what you want them to prove.

When used by charlatans or the incompetent. Even incompetent charlatans only get the right answers occasionally by chance. 

But in the hands of competent users, statistics are tremendously useful.

Your maps do show that poverty is a great way to stop global warming.

I think he's talking about the loss of Polar Ice.

That's Venus for chips.  You're mixing up your men and women.

                 God bless the OP for starting this thread but, have you seen this video by Bill Nye?  Its hillarious!  http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-nye-you-should-give-a-fck-about-climate-change-not-deflategate/

An amusing presentation! I am interested to read that Bill Nye is having a competition with Ed Begley as to who can have the lowest carbon footprint! A good example to us all.