Reply to Xtrix When I talk about being damned to contribute, I mean I refuse to be part of the problem. I use about a quarter of the energy the previous owners did and about 50% of the gas and I don't even have solar panels yet. The electricity I use goes to a 100% renewable energy provider (and not because they traded carbon certificates) and the gas supplier offsets CO2 I use by planting trees. In the energy saving area, I'm happy to advise anyone who asks. I've done alot of research in which area of Europe is most likely to easily return to rural farming that if close enough to the Netherlands that I can regularly travel there to prepare something my grandchildren can escape to when it's required.
What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail.
Another tactic that gets deliberately perpetuated is the sense of hopelessness and helplessness. "I can't do anything; It's too big; nothing will change anyway; it's already over."
Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything".
I repeat several times that it remains a moral imperative to do what we can, and also what we do now will have a large effect on how much damage we end up doing.
However, it is simply reality that we can not avoid severe damages, which have already happened. 85% reduction in animal biomass is incredible level of damage to life.
This is true not only of climate change but of many other issues; it was true for women's rights and civil rights and gay rights.
There's a few differences with these comparisons that may help elucidate my point.
The transatlantic slavery trade and American slavery was going on for hundreds of years before it was abolished (not to say slavery elsewhere or at other times was less bad, but just to focus on one particular sequence of events). There's already a large amount of damage and suffering that has been perpetrated, that obviously people against slavery recognised. The amount of suffering and social damage transatlantic slavery caused over hundreds of years is truly immense.
Certainly, for many against slavery, the "institution" seemed so powerful, the madness going on so long and the suffering so enormous that it would feel at times hopeless. And put yourself in the shoes of people who opposed slavery hundreds of years before it was eventually abolished.
And, here's the point, no matter how overwhelming the suffering is and the danger of that inspiring helplessness rather than action, simply denying the reality of the suffering of slavery doesn't help. Pretending that "slavery isn't so bad" to make the issue more emotionally approachable I think you would agree is not a good strategy for anti-slavery work.
The difference with climate change, is that we had the potential to avoid these damages.
So, a better analogy would be people who acted to try to avoid slavery, transatlantic or otherwise, starting in the first place, or avoid one of the various genocides.
Obviously they failed. Now, doesn't mean their actions were useless, or "hopeless" in the sense they should not have acted.
However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact.
Policies were easily available to avoid severe consequences of climate change. The thing to do now is limit the damages, but it is simply reality to recognise the failure to avoid the entire disaster in the first place.
Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something.
Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything".
It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread. I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway.
What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail.
I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still.
But it's really not the case. We've already brought projected emissions down a great deal. Attention and movements have begun to form, the next generation is very concerned, and people are now seeing and living with the effects of inaction as we speak. It's estimated that about 3% of US GDP a year would get us to where we need to be. That's hardly impossible.
However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact.
The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.
I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.
That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action.
Reply to Xtrix All we had to do to prevent climate change was to follow Aristotle's advice: aureum mediocritas (the golden mean) or nec quid nimis (nothin' to excess). These simple rules, if followed in the right way, would have worked like a charm - no wars, no global warming, no poverty, no nothin'!
Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.
Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws.
I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still.
Yeah no. I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain. So we might solve global warming of I'm very optimistic but that won't really solve anything.
Wiki:For humanity, having a footprint smaller than the planet's biocapacity is a necessary condition for sustainability. After all, ecological overuse is only possible temporarily. A country that consumes more than 1.73 gha per person has a resource demand that is not sustainable world-wide if every country were to exceed that consumption level simultaneously. Countries with a footprint below 1.73 gha per person might not be sustainable: the quality of the footprint may still lead to net long-term ecological destruction. If a country does not have enough ecological resources within its own territory to cover its population's footprint, then it runs an ecological deficit and the country is termed an ecological debtor. Otherwise, it has an ecological reserve and it is called a creditor.
Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something.
By all mean do something. I am doing something too. As for things turning around quickly... I'll believe it when I see it.
I wish people would stop pretending science will solve everything, which is something other people do, after all, so they have an excuse not to make the necessary sacrifices themselves, which we're all going to have to do.
While I don't necessarily think science will solve everything, it's a better option than expecting everyone to suddenly come to a realization that they're destroying the environment and doing the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. We tried the latter for 40 years and that got us nowhere. People just aren't gonna make the necessary sacrifices because it involves them doing something inconvenient. It's why NIMBYism is a thing.
At least technological advances are immune to inconsistency of governments. If renewables and EVs are made more affordable and economically competitive (which fortunately it seems to be getting to in recent years) then it doesn't matter what kind of science denying buffoon the voters decide to elect into office. Businesses will decide to decarbonize of their own accord.
Reply to Mr Bee Doing nothing isn't really an option and expecting scientific solutions to what in essence are socioeconomic systems that are unsustainable is misplaced scientism. Most people would be fine with a lower standard of living if wealth would be much more equitably distributed and it's not average people who are the problem here anyway. Living in the 50s-60s wasn't bad and that's the standard we'd more or less be talking about.
I'm ensuring for my kids as well, a way to escape the consequences, which in my view are inevitable.
I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.
I mean, it'd be nice if all sides acknowledged the problem and just had differing approaches to solving it. In a world that made sense that would've been the case. I'd love it if both the right and the left had debates over whether we should decarbonize using nuclear or renewables for example. Unfortunately that isn't the world that we live in, and I don't know how much longer we all are gonna live in this world anyways if this is how we're gonna act.
I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.
Oh, if I had my way, I'd have climate denying politicians and one-percenters summarily executed for murder.
Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.
I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them.
I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain.
Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies, I'm interested in real solutions to a real problem -- solutions we already have and, if there's sufficient popular pressure, can employ immediately. Renewable energy is sustainable. If we have to wait around for something much more drastic, then we're likely doomed.
But we don't. That's a long-term project, and a necessary one, but not at all a requirement for this particular issue. If you're convinced it is, fine -- that's your prerogative and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from acting accordingly. But I see little evidence for it.
Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions?
Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. Since the corporations own the government (Joe Manchin a good example), the only way things change in time is if the corporations give the "OK," and that only happens if they're facing a real crisis. One way to create that crisis is workers walking off the job. With the energy industry, that's going to be hard -- but not impossible. Other industries can help as well -- Amazon, Apple, Starbucks. We're seeing unions pop up everywhere, against great odds. It's very exciting and inspiring indeed.
Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.
Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
Regarding unions:
After decades of decline in the United States, unions may be poised for a comeback.
Every month seems to bring more promising news for organized labor. Workers at Starbucks have organized roughly 100 stores from coast to coast since last fall. REI employees formed the outdoor retailer’s very first union. Amazon employees defied all the odds and won an 8,000-worker union election in New York City. And an Apple Store in Towson, Maryland, became the first to unionize last month.
Just 1 in 10 U.S. workers now belongs to a union, down from roughly 1 in 3 in the period following World War II. Yet the labor movement is showing more muscle now than it has in years. Emboldened by a tight labor market and two years of toiling through a pandemic, workers are succeeding in organizing companies that have staunchly resisted unionization, and many of them are doing it practically on their own.
You'd think it was something out of the Onion after reading Graham's statement:
The party has largely moved beyond denying the existence of climate change but continues to oppose dramatic action to halt it, worried about the short-term economic consequences.
One hundred million Americans from Arizona to Boston are under heat emergency warnings, and the drought in the West is nearing Dust Bowl proportions. Britain declared a climate emergency as temperatures soared above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and parts of blistering Europe are ablaze.
But on Capitol Hill this week, Republicans were warning against rash action in response to the burning planet.
“I don’t want to be lectured about what we need to do to destroy our economy in the name of climate change,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.
One Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, last week blocked what could have been the country’s most far-reaching American response to climate change. But lost in the recriminations and finger-pointing is the other side of the aisle: All 50 Republicans in the Senate have been as opposed to decisive action to confront planetary warming.
Few Republicans in Congress now outwardly dismiss the scientific evidence that human activities — the burning of oil, gas and coal — have produced gases that are dangerously heating the Earth.
But for many, denial of the cause of global temperature rise has been replaced by an insistence that the solution — replacing fossil fuels over time with wind, solar and other nonpolluting energy sources — will hurt the economy.
In short, delay is the new denial.
I think this further nails it:
Overwhelmingly, Republicans on Capitol Hill say that they believe that the United States should be drilling and burning more American oil, gas and coal, and that market forces would somehow develop solutions to the carbon dioxide that has been building in the atmosphere, trapping heat like a blanket around a sweltering Earth.
Exactly. So no more outright denial -- just that we can't do anything about it, it's hopeless, China and India need to do more and so anything we do won't matter anyway, etc. Why put ourselves at a "disadvantage"? Why be the bigger person?
It's as good as outright denial. In both cases, the outcome is the same: do nothing. Keep drilling. What else justifies this? The "market," of course! Market fundamentalism. The wonderful market, that will automatically guide the world in the right direction. Whatever the market decides, that's the way forward. It's like consulting magic bones.
So it has gone with the Republican Party, where warnings of a catastrophe are mocked as hyperbole, where technologies that do not exist on a viable scale, such as “carbon capture and storage” and “clean coal,” are hailed as saviors. At the same time, those that do, such as wind and solar power and electric vehicles, are dismissed as unreliable and overly expensive. American leadership on a global problem is seen as a fool’s errand, kneecapping the domestic economy while Indian and Chinese coal bury America’s good intentions in soot.
“When China gets our good air, their bad air’s got to move,” Herschel Walker, a former football star and now a Republican candidate in Georgia for the Senate, explained last week. “So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we’ve got to clean that back up.”
I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them.
I see. What's your theory then about why we're in this mess, climate change and all?
Not supposed to cheer people’s deaths, of course, but when you think of how many people will suffer and die for one person’s stupidity and corruption, their passing is a deliverance.
but if we agree the less powerful could easily unite and topple the elites at any moment ... then collectively the less powerful have more responsibility.
I don't agree that the less powerful could "easily unite" or easily "topple the elite". True, it has happened in the past, but not often. To a small extent, a move in that direction just happened in Sri Lanka (but only a couple of heads rolled -- the power elite is still intact there). It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.
You are quite right. It is irrelevant because the elites and the commoners, being the same species, are similarly endowed. We do not seem to be able to act on risks that are not immediate. We are not even good at recognizing and measuring risk. The momentum of the industrial revolution has driven the use of fossil fuel, and elites and commoners all welcomed the labor saving which coal, steam, oil, and gas (turned into on-line energy) made possible.
Life has been hard for us for most of our history, requiring enormous amounts of labor, much of it miserable and life-shortening. Science and technology have made life easier for many (not all, though).
If the James Webb cameras were to spot a large human-life-ending meteor heading in our direction, with arrival time about 30 years into the future and a 75% likelihood of a catastrophic impact, the world would not unite in laboring to build the device which would deflect the meteor. There would be bickering and dithering over plans, denial, contention, possibly major destabilization--possibly up until the rock arrived or barely missed us. Various people would definitely get blamed, no matter what. Why?
Why? Because we are not perfectly evolved primates. Yes, we do have lots of hard capabilities, but we also have lots of hard limitations. Maybe we can all agree that the James Webb Telescope is a marvel, but we have not all agreed that we should get vaccinated against Covid 19 (and other diseases); that we should wear masks in public; that we should stay home if we feel sick, and so on. Those are easy behavior changes.
Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies
That's precisely what's needed and the fact you call it a fantasy is proof in the pudding that we will not resolve it on time. If even the optimists don't believe it will happen, then it certainly won't.
I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.
What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average.
So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change...
You could also do a revolution and size power for the people and away from corporations. It's called a democracy.
Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels. Fuck cars and the idea that individual transportation should be a thing. Prohibit them in cities and large towns and invest in public transportation. Lawnmowers? You can mow by hand, which also require a lot less maintenance as they rarely break down. Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective.
Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too.
Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way.
I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it.
The problem runs far deeper than just consumer choices or unionism. It's about the people we've become.
I really understand their anger. The farmers are also angry because they say, ‘we are the only sector who get all the blame.’ What about industry? What about the traffic? Maybe we should just ban all the cars in the Netherlands because they also emit nitrogen. This plan as announced in practice means that, in certain areas, farmers have to reduce their nitrogen emissions by 70%. That means they simply have to quit.
Eva Vlaardingerbroek :This is literally communism. If the state says, ‘we are going to take your private property away for the sake of a greater good,’ then the state has the prerogative to create crises to strip you of your rights. That's what's happening here. This will definitely affect ordinary civilians. It's part of a global agenda, so everyone around the world, especially Western countries, should be aware that this is something that is not just about the Dutch government. This is part of the ‘2030 agenda,’ this is part of the ‘great reset.’
It is not very rational to curb the Dutch agriculture if you realize that they have the highest production per acre in the world and therefore the environmental load per kilogram food is lower than elsewhere. So, in a sense Dutch agriculture is a benefit for climate as well as biodiversity.
Similar protests could soon happen in the U.K. and parts of the European Union where natural gas and energy costs are near historic levels.
The issue is that despite this growing energy crisis in Europe, some governments still prioritize the climate agenda which makes energy ever more expensive, or which forces farmers to close their farms because that is the top priority, still, for a number of governments. This whole green agenda is causing huge burdens.
The Dutch are driven mad by these policies because it's killing their businesses and the farmers are fighting back big time.
This is what's going to happen all over Europe. I have no doubt that, come winter and millions of families can't heat their homes or pay their bills anymore, that there will be unrest all over Europe.
All we had to do to prevent climate change was to follow Aristotle's advice: aureum mediocritas (the golden mean) or nec quid nimis (nothin' to excess). These simple rules, if followed in the right way, would have worked like a charm - no wars, no global warming, no poverty, no nothin'!
Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.
Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws
This is actually pretty smart, and an antidote to what progressive kids from wealty or academical families tends to go on about, wanting working people to make their lives worse:
When you talk about our human nature, count me out. I just love lying in my bed reading stuff. Pandemics learned me to keep myself fit without any gyms and shite. I also work a lot from home and did not give my kids car rides to sport activities.
Be lazy, philosopize, read and watch the sunsets. That way you have a rich inner life and do not spend so much power.
The upper class kids, also those getting progressive and having environment things are really the driving force for the opposite. I’ve seen it plenty since i made the class journey from daytime work environments to a pretty area where all houses are nice. And getting to know a lot of people in the uni town I live in now - the class divider is all these life expectancies. Where I grew up noone really had any projects, plans for whatever. One was sorted into whatever one seemed to do well in and did it.
Where I live now all kids have all these projects. My own daughter claims to be an environmentist, leftist, everything ist but what did she do… go around the world, and she did not take the bicycle.
The gordian knot is to relax. And the guys that are born energetic can use that energy to invent smart solar cells, fusion power or whatever. We get happier and save the planet at the same time.
Reply to Agent Smith Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem.
Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem.
Well, you're correct! There's a very good reason why the synonym for foreigners is aliens - we could as well be living on different planets, that's how different we are.
Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.
As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.
That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand.
It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.
But it isn’t. At least in my view. If I’m naive, and that’s truly what’s needed — then yes, we’re probably doomed. In that case we should immediately take up arms.
It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread.
The situation is hopeless in terms of the damages already done ... which most people are unaware of.
The situation is also hopeless in terms of avoiding significant further damages that are simply now physically unavoidable.
We are currently in a global famine, caused by climate change and socio-political disruptions arguably themselves also related to climate change not helping stability as well as direct resource competition.
[quote="Xtrix;720839"]I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway.
This is not my message.
You completely ignore the part where I explain my view that doing whatever we can, as effectively as we can, is a moral imperative, regardless of the likely outcome.
Furthermore, I made it clear I viewed extinction as highly unlikely and everything we do now has significant impact on where the environmental and social damage eventually plays out.
Which I'm sure on a "philosophical level" you agree with.
What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it).
The reality is simply that it's no longer 40 years ago where obvious, easy to implement policies (stop subsidising fossil, start internalising its true costs ... which society pays anyways a long list of, not just climate change!) could have easily avoided the current crisis.
It's not even 20 yeas ago when I got full time into working on climate change, where bold but feasible actions, again, would have avoided the current crisis.
The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.
I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.
That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action.
Yes, I agree we are only really debating emphasis.
Which, I gave my view on the "hope" question because I was asked specifically that.
However, to act effectively requires a clear understanding of the situation, this is where maybe there are genuine differences.
An optimal plan depends on the effective-time and resources-over-time available.
Decades ago, the actions required were obvious and there was time to implement the policies in a gradual way.
I would argue that is no longer the case, and we are in a much more urgent situation, and "exactly how urgent" does matter in the calculus of optimum strategy.
Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.
What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average.
Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough.
So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change...
That's why I mentioned strike-ready supermajorities. Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? If they do strike, but simply don't do so in the necessary industries for climate-related legislation, that too is a problem -- and one we have in the US as well.
Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
— Xtrix
All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels.
It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.
In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive.
Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective.
Yeah, heat pumps aren't a panacea. They don't work in very areas that get very cold, and often you'll need fossil fuel back-up. But in warmer areas they work very well, and are becoming much less expensive and more efficient. A much better choice than oil and gas, even if for the immediate health benefits. But yes, for maximal impact they should be coupled with solar panels -- no doubt.
I'm emphasizing electrifying on the individual level because it will be much easy to decarbonize the electric grid down the road if we start now. Right now, of course, electricity is still mostly generated by natural gas/coal in the US (about 60%). Electricity, combined with transportation, accounts for more than half of all emissions. If you include some commercial and residential emissions (heating and cooling), then then you're over 60% of all emissions. That's mainly the focus, in my view.
Industry (steel, cement, etc) and agriculture are harder. I suppose consuming less meat, and consuming less generally, is a good idea for individuals.
But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way.
But we have. We're currently in the middle of a surge, in fact. At least in the US.
Regardless, I think the problem is often the very idea -- that's been beaten out of people's heads. Lots of propaganda against unions. It's also other obstacles -- like how difficult employers have made unionization.
Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way.
I'm really not seeing the point here. The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who?
What's in the way could very much be the ideas. That seems to be the case, in fact. There are many other obstacles as well even after the ideas are accepted.
What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it).
No, I took issue with the emphasis. It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy. I see a lot of this going on right now because of Manchin's obstruction, and I think it should be tempered.
It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy.
This is the disagreement.
The reality is whatever it is and understanding it as best we can is essential (accounting for different perspectives, limitations of our senses and analysis and all that).
A really large amount of effort was spent in the 90s "softening the blow" to society realising this incredible threat and its danger.
Many in the environmental movement bought into this fossil fuel propaganda of making the message more palpable for people to process. The argument was that if people believed it wasn't so bad, no "alarmism" then A. scientists wouldn't be accused of alarmism and B. starting at least some actions would be easier.
However, the water-down-the-danger strategy simply resulted in Kyoto just being a completely ineffective thing, whatever it was.
This was mixed with a lot of corruption, such as creating monetary conflicts of interest for everyone involved including the environmental movement insofar as possible (aka. bribes), but "rational" people need to be able to rationalise their corruption, and the soften-the-blow strategy, people need to have a not-so-alarming message, was the essential mental mechanism to do that. People then quickly believe their own propaganda, that there really was more time, "a hundred years".
The scientists that refused and activists that refused to get onboard the softy-slowly-wobbly-train (basically an alliance with fossil fuels who were going to "invest" in green energy, beyond petroleum and all that) were then just pushed out of the media (due to insane levels of corruption there; journalism quality was way different in the 90s and the denialism industry had not yet really been created, as the strategy of the 70 - 80s was "we need more research" which accepts the rationalists framework, and so setup the "research is done to justify action" in the 90s, which there was not yet a network of just zany anti-rationalist, anti-science denialism).
The big environmental organisations got behind "biofuels" so that people wouldn't need to contemplate driving less, even though the science is clear that biofuels cannot possibly displace any significant amount of fossil fuels, competes with food and wilderness, and public transportation and in particular trains are the ecological transport solution (had USA started a high speed rail network in the 90s, it would be now reaping the same benefits China is now getting).
Now, what was the obvious truth back then?
The obvious truth is that even with the "rosy models" approach, the risks were still clearly insanely high. A political standard had been created (by the fossil industry) that 30% risk of total catastrophe (extreme climate change) was acceptable.
The non-corrupt scientists continued to point out that such a political standard was insane, biofuels a fools errand and not only delays effective actions but makes the problem worse by encouraging more car culture, that by the time we feel the consequences of climate change a large amount of damage will be locked in due to the momentum of the system as well as such effects will cause political and social costs and instability which makes effective actions even harder.
Most of all, the obvious truth the now marginalised scientists continued to explain, was that's it's completely insane to continue to not only ignore not only the climate costs but all the other costs to society of fossil fuel use (in particular cars) on health and ecosystems and just inefficiencies compared to public transport and intercity rail, but continue to subsidise fossil fuels and develop even dirtier fossil fuel extraction methods! and that the policy of stopping the subsidies and internalising even non-climate related costs is by definition a net benefit to society in itself (society is paying those costs through taxes and costly harms ... just not at the gas pump).
So, in short, the "don't be too alarming" play and its consequences has already played out before, fossil consumption went up like business as usual, the critical infrastructure projects that take decades to build didn't happen.
Now we're fucked.
That's the simple truth.
People need to accept that we're fucked (in my opinion) to start understanding and dealing with the situation.
The "it's not so bad, not so alarming, we have time" argument worked when things still seemed normal and we didn't feel any consequences.
The older generations went from being concerned, clearly an issue governments should sort out, another of a long list of frightening pollution issues that need to be solved ... to "I'll be dead by then!!" Older people absolutely loved saying this.
I remember hearing all my older extended family joking about this around the Christmas and thanks giving table etc. And I remember the burning anger and "they know not what they do; the fucking bastards" impression it gave.
The greatest trick the devil ever played, was convincing the baby boomers global warming didn't concern them as they'd be long dead before the disastrous impacts. Also something about markets and progress and whatever.
Now people feel the consequences, are extremely anxious about, wondering how we got here and where exactly here is.
They need to hear the truthful message: We. Are. Fucked.
As, that's what corresponds to their actual experience. People can sense that we're fucked.
What now? Yes, that's the followup question, but the followup question to accepting that we're fucked.
Global famine is here. I wrote (as many others) about that being a "big moment" of global destabilisation and we need to act before such things start to happen, to avoid being fucked, 20 years ago.
Analysis was correct then, correct now, and now that global famine is upon us the conclusion of such analysis, that we're fucked, also remains true.
Of course, actions can make us less rather than more fucked, and we should do what we can.
Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.
As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.
That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand.
Sorry to burst your bubble. There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production, anything beyond that and you get black outs. Renewables will cause much larger shifts and we don't have adequate battery technology to store the necessary energy to fill in the gaps. (That's not to say there aren't hopeful developments in this area).
It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.
In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive.
Yes, standards of living, excuse my English but you understood what I meant. And not just the US, every country in Europe.
True. So remove the propaganda? But that seems obvious too, I'm sure activists have already thought of that. So why haven't they been able to. What's in the way?
The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who?
No, the problem isn't with the idea (read my quote again). If everyone already knows the idea but isn't doing anything in accordance with it, then something else must be in the way. Just telling them the idea a second time clearly isn't going to do anything.
Everyone already knows about climate change. everyone already knows we should use electric cars, solar panels, less in general, go vegetarian, plant a tree... They just don't. So what's stopping them? Clearly it's not that they haven't been told what to do.
There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production, anything beyond that and you get black outs. Renewables will cause much larger shifts and we don't have adequate battery technology to store the necessary energy to fill in the gaps. (That's not to say there aren't hopeful developments in this area).
Natural gas being needed to "transition" to keep the grid stable (basically only hydro and gas can react to variations from renewable energy, and hydro is generally maxed out pretty much everywhere), as I've written about in previous posts.
However, the problem is actually even worse than even you describe above, since if you want to move from fossil to electric cars and trucks, now the grid needs to be expanded even more to power these systems.
Just an additional point to add to the de-growth requirement.
However, I don't think for Europe and US a voluntary de-growth is now feasible, but it will happen involuntarily. President of the EU telling member states to cut gas consumption by 15% is already manifestation of that process.
What is interesting to focus on is the other half of get people to a 1950's level, which means growing the economy for billions of poor people.
If that is done with renewable energy (the mythical leap frog), and in a profoundly different way to aping Western society (no cars, local living, local working, gardens, etc. which is easy to do in areas of the world that are still rural) then it could actually just keep going in terms of developing and surpass not only 1950's but even our Western standard of living.
For, if you had a truly renewable and local based economy with significant renewable energy access and highly educated, which costs little resources to share knowledge, using mostly solar, then you'd have pretty much all the benefits of Western technology without the downsides of pollution, urban anonymity, commuting, stupid jobs, homelessness, etc.
It would still consume way less resources and so be smaller if resource throughput is the measure of economy (or GDP essentially a proxy for resource throughput), but quality of life can be far higher than even middle class Western standards today.
However, I don't think for Europe and US a voluntary de-growth is now feasible, but it will happen involuntarily. President of the EU telling member states to cut gas consumption by 15% is already manifestation of that process.
Just tuning your heating system can get you these cuts, factory presets are generally wasteful. But nobody really knows that and installers know but don't take the time to do it. You'll have to separately make a 300 eur appointment for "hydronic balancing", which is actually easy and something your granny could do.
Then there's the ridiculous law in the Netherlands that requires potable water from heating systems to be heated to at least 60 degrees because of fear of legionellabacteria, while next door Germany happily heats it to only 50. That saves a ton too. So I broke a law as well.
Using less gas would be easy actually if people were made aware and supported with these kind of energy saving tips but I had to learn it from my dad for some weird ass reason. And he knew because he built refineries for a living.
Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough.
And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize, or they would have started doing so a long time ago not to emperil the human race.
Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point?
The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.
The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.
Not so sure about that. At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.
Apparently Manchin was really buddy buddy with the coal miners, or at least trying to be, seeing as he's a coal baron and all. Kind of wonder how they feel about him now that he's shown himself to be playing games for the past year and a half over legislation that would've helped them transition to other jobs. Those coal jobs aren't coming back, and the coal industry in the US is dying, no matter who is in charge of the White House. They seem to understand that but I guess that's just Manchin looking out for his constituents.
At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.
The concerns of miners, as described in the article you posted, and the reasons why they support the BBB bill have nothing to see with climate change: they are naturally about pensions, healthcare and jobs. They are not going to go on strike to save the planet.
They're also not gonna furiously defend coal either like your last post implied. Like you said, they care about employment, and they're perfectly fine with clean jobs just so long as they have them, which was why they wanted the manufacturers creating new jobs in their coalfields.
Here is my local hydro storage facility. a grid scale mechanical battery completed in 1984 and operating ever since. If you have a couple of lakes at different levels pumping water up to the higher one stores the energy. The grid can be maintained with a variety of energy storage systems along with a good diversity of generation systems. Tidal is intermittent but reliable for instance. It's all perfectly doable with some adjustment of lifestyle, particularly in single use, planned obsolescence, and private travel facilities.
It doesn't happen because the all too visible hand of the wealthy rules, and automation has reached the point that the economic value of a peasant is now negative. Therefore it is the human population that is in line for recycling first, and then the green revolution will be much easier and will largely take care of itself.
Reply to Changeling No. Great film, but why would one bother to confine humanity in these vast self-sufficient prisons, when you can just send them to war to kill each other off?
Reply to Xtrix The point is that you're missing the point. Energy networks are complex and balancing in- and output is an issue that goes far beyond putting different cables in the ground and tweaking power stations.
Really? I did caveat the claim with 'in the Western world'. Do I move in such restricted circles. I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change. If there are exceptions they're few and far between.
Energy networks are complex and balancing in- and output is an issue that goes far beyond putting different cables in the ground and tweaking power stations.
Not tweaking— building new ones. Building new transmission lines as well. A major undertaking, but doable. (I’m talking here about electricity, by the way.) Plenty of information out there about this.
It’s far from missing the point — it is the point. At least the one I was making. If you’re talking about something else, fine.
Plenty of examples— but let’s be clear about what I’m saying: if the government is essentially controlled by corporate America, then the best chance we have of moving them is by getting corporate America to give the OK. That’ll only happen through public pressure, especially in the form of unions. There’s a lot of history worth reviewing from the 1930s, etc.
I’m not talking exclusively about fossil fuel companies. Although that’s a key industry, of course.
I think it is the reason we are in this mess.
— Olivier5
I think so too.
Why would you say it's irrelevant, then? The US has been and remain the stumbling block to serious emission reductions. That's relevant. Your polity is fucked up, it's the best democracy money can buy. Corporations rule you. That's in essence why we're all doomed.
Reply to Olivier5
That's a little myopic. We have this problem because we started using fossil fuels. The problem isn't that we're gluttonous. It's not a problem with the northwestern hemisphere. It's a problem the human species will have for the rest of its time on Earth.
A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it.
Reply to Tate Historically speaking, the US has been and remains the main stumbling block to any reasonable solution. That's a fact. It's not about technology as much as about political influence.
Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.
The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions.
Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time.
Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled.
I stand by all of that, and am in fact involved in them.
Because the problem seems overwhelming, for one. But mostly because those in power seem immovable and remote— that this is just the way if things. It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves— rugged individualism, natural law, human nature, etc.
All complete bullshit, sure. But if you ask people what they think can be done, you’ll get variations of this theme. It’s just feeling powerless. I see it when talking to workers too — they internalize the feeling that to ask for more is greedy and that they’re undeserving — and probably don’t understand the decisions being made anyway.
It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves
Has it? If I turn on the TV and flick to some current affairs, or chat show, or even a soap opera do you honestly think the message I'd be getting on climate change is "don't bother, you can't do anything, you're all alone"? It doesn't seem that way to me (I must admit thought I don't have a TV, but I do read the news - I'm extrapolating). It seems to me that the message about climate change and what we can do to help is literally everywhere. I'm not reading this fatalist, or nihilist message that you seem to think is everywhere beaten into people.
Or are you talking about a deeper psychological 'beating'? Kind of 'beaten into us by life'? If so then it seems that, if you want mass mobilisation, you need to fix that problem first otherwise no one will do anything no matter how much you wave your placard.
Reply to Tate Ah yes, sorry. What I had in mind was a policy-driven reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the US. The kind of things Obama tried to do and Trump undid. Or prior, Clinton tried to do and Bush undid. Given the dominent position of the US geopolitically and in terms of their huge greenhouse gas emissions, the lack of serious, sustained effort and support from Washington sends a message to other nations that they don't need to make any effort, and worse, that they efforts if they decide to make them will amount to nought because the biggest world polluter is not doing its share.
Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.
The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions.
Alright, there does exist technical and economic solution, such as degrowth, or renewables, or nuclear power, or taxing fossil fuels prohibitively.
Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now....
That's a little myopic. ... A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it.
Due to cost of catastrophic failures of several early design nuclear facilities that destroyed their surrounding communities for at least 50 years to come nuclear energy companies (the "corporations") have retrenched from developing safer more efficient facilities. If you ran one of those companies you would also be obliged to be sure to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima of your making. The savior fusion reactor research has so far proven to be too impractical and has fallen out of realistic consideration.
If whatever technology was ripe the "corporations" would jump at the opportunity to grab it.
Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now....
According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.
Washington sends a message to other nations that they don't need to make any effort, and worse, that they efforts if they decide to make them will amount to nought because the biggest world polluter is not doing its share.
I see what you mean, although China is presently the largest producer of CO2.
I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem.
I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change.
And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
Also, you didn’t mention simply “knowing,” you stated that everyone knows both about climate change and what we should do about climate change. That’s not the case in the West. Climate denial is rampant.
I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem.
That's what it means for a problem to be global; that no one group can solve it. As in a global pandemic, that could have been quickly halted by global cooperation to isolate and compensate, but only by every country working cooperatively to the same end. It didn't happen with that either. But to the extent that the US is the leading power, and the leading per capita producer of CO2, and a leading technological innovator, it does have the power to influence by example and encourage compliance with a strategy by economic means, and hugely contribute to the solution instead of hugely contributing to the failure to tackle the problem at all.
And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
Yes. If people hear all about climate change and what they ought to do about but their response is "it's a hoax" then telling them again isn't going to do anything, is it?
The point I'm making is that you keep talking about solutions which have already been tried and failed and you're not addressing the reasons why they failed.
We've tried coming up with technological solutions. No one cared. We tried campaigns and messaging. No one joined. We tried more urgent messaging. People reckoned it was a hoax. We tried politics. The politicians were corrupted. We tried unionising. The corporations were able to put too many barriers in the way.
etc.
If we're to make progress we need to look at the barriers, the reasons why campaigns are failing. all we tend to do is have another campaign instead. And that itself is another barrier. Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing?
But to the extent that the US is the leading power, and the leading per capita producer of CO2, and a leading technological innovator, it does have the power to influence by example and encourage compliance with a strategy by economic means, and hugely contribute to the solution instead of hugely contributing to the failure to tackle the problem at all.
I agree. My focus tends to be on the scale of centuries. The US won't exist in a thousand years, so I tend to ignore it. Maybe I should pay more attention to the contribution my generation makes.
And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
— Xtrix
Yes.
So the point is that nearly everywhere has heard the words. Fine. Completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. But then again, that really wasn’t the point:
I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it.
No, people don’t know what they ought to do to help, because they think it’s a hoax.
Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing?
I was asked about solutions. If what you’re asking is how we make progress towards those ends, overcoming barriers, etc., there’s plenty to be said about it.
If you want my personal opinion, I think that because progress requires people, and lots of them, coming together in solidarity— the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people. That could be my psychotherapy background talking, but these are the factors involved in any growth and change I’ve ever witnessed. People don’t change by being lectured.
Jane McAlevey has written extensively on this, and comes to similar conclusions— focusing on labor unions, but the principles are the same. She’s had win after win. Worth reading.
the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people.
Right. That's very similar to where I was headed. What's the point in rehashing the solutions whilst you know full well the barriers to achieving them are as firm as ever.
It's like going over and over the plan to hitchhike to Mexico once you're out of prison without having a clue how you're going to get out.
I'll add that this is all the more true when one considers the impact of those factors on consumerism.
So you don't see removal of barriers as part of the solution? What distinguishes the two for you?
Removal of barriers to reach an end is not completely separate, but not the same either. In the post I linked to, I touched on some of them. But what was asked about concerned actions and solutions to climate change. So I gave a few, collective and individual. Some areas there's been real progress, others less so.
If we want to go into detail about how to achieve one in particular, we can. Lately I've been focused primarily on unionization and strikes -- we can get into the strategies and methods that work. But there's all kinds of others -- I mentioned public utility commissions, for example. Plenty of work to be done there; worth getting into if you're interested. There's also efforts to mobilize voters, and the most effective ways to do so. I particularly like deep canvassing, of which there are groups you can join that will train you to learn, if that fits your personality.
Happy to have the discussion, but the post to which you're reacting to was mostly confined to general solutions, since that's what was asked -- not about the detailed strategy, methodology, and tactics involved in achieving them.
Great. Let's take the first issue. We tell people there's global warming, they say it's a hoax. What's your preferred approach there. Seems like people believing there's even a problem is a good place to start solving it.
Reply to Isaac My preferred approach is to shoot them. Kill them now and safe future generations later. Unfortunately, that approach doesn't have much support.
I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem
Indeed but it was in a key position to encourage or discourage the efforts of others, and it did the latter, since the 90's or so until now. Very systematically too. The US owns this crisis. It's made in the USA. While the problem is global, the search for solutions is necessarily local. The US opted to deny the problem.
According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.
Which is why BBB won't pass with any climate measure in it, and if by miracle it does pass, then it will be knocked down by the next president. The US is not able to do the right thing on climate, nor even to pretend.
The no "alarmism", meek speak, no difficult demands, incrementalism, approach has achieved essentially nothing.
George Monbiot also points out that while the environmental movement has achieved essentially nothing based, our opponents have achieved system change (implementing neo-liberalism and more extreme oligarchic control).
I think a useful analogy to demonstrate my point is: imagine you were an anti-NAZI activist before the NAZI's gained imperial power, and then NAZI's gain imperial power. Ok, yes, resistance can continue, but it's simply reality that in the the previous goal of preventing the NAZI's from taking over has been defeated. Recognising this defeat is simply reality, and to call it "defeatism" is a category mistake.
If I accept I lost a chess game (because I lost the chess game) this says only that I see reality for what it is, and am not in denial about it, and informs nothing of whether I have a defeatist attitude in chess, or generally speaking, in life.
Of course, yes, people who lose chess games may take on a defeatist attitude and not play anymore; however, to trick them into believing they've won, or maybe tied, when they lost is not a solution to defeating defeatism.
You may say: ok, ok, yes, we've lost a lot of battles but what matters is what we do now.
Which I agree with.
Why I am emphasising the defeat is because if we don't see reality as clearly as possible and don't learn from the past then our next actions will not be very effective.
The environmental movement has been going on a pretty long time spinning the same plans around and around; it is, broadly speaking, become closer to a ritualised mea culpa artistic expression, precisely to avoid effective actions (for it is this non-threatening version of environmentalism that is allowed to not only develop unhindered--as it's not threatening anyone--but provided plenty of resources for marketing purposes of the "Great Firms").
Not only would I argue environmentalism has been soundly and unequivocally defeated since it's inception in essentially every dimension, I also argue that the examples of humanism "wins" were also defeats in the final analysis. Even ignoring that social justice means ziltch if we have no environment in which to have a society: did we really defeat slavery? or simply call it by another name? Do we even have democracy? or do we have a global aristocracy in which "democracy" is part of its self-justification, its sense of superior civilisation, its racism, supporting its imperial control of the entire globe? Have we really accomplished these things? or have we merely built the illusions necessary for global elites to normalise their indifference to the vast suffering required for every one of their comforts, block out every fact that would disturb proper conversation.
Not only would I argue we've lost these battles, every advance merely temporary and somehow subsequently subsumed into a mythological reorganisation of the human spirit to render the defeat of every evil in appearance (in the following moments when our movements rest and congratulate themselves on a job well done) are utilised to transform into a far deeper evil, far more pernicious reality, far harder to fight again: for the defeat of the symbol without the defeat of the substance merely renders what was once fought a nameless entity, continuing as before, truly freed from any scrutiny.
We do not have democracy. We do not have humanism. We do not have literacy. We do not have any single one of the slogans slapped on our citadels of hate and corruption (equality? fraternity? life? liberty? pursuit of happiness? good governance? "peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet"? are but whimsical fantasies representing the holy grail of tyrannical power: appropriation of the very minds of the oppressed).
For, I would go even further in my analysis. That not only has our cause met with defeat in every single dimension, every single battle waged, but we have now been pressed back to defending our very last refuge: The castle of our own skulls; our consciousness, sense of self and perception of the world. And the enemy is at the gates. The walls are crumbling in. Our gardens of concepts and experience necessary to sustain the very idea of a fight in the first place, are on fire.
Has anybody looked at the climate change issue from a taijitu (yin-yang) perspective? As per Laozi, the founder of Taoism, the solution to a problem is present within the problem itself. Let's wait for the problem to solve itself, oui mes amies?
A good traveler leaves no tracks,
and a skillful speaker is well rehearsed.
A good bookkeeper has an excellent memory,
and a well-made door is easy to open and needs no locks.
A good knot needs no rope and it cannot come undone.
Thus the Master is willing to help everyone,
and doesn't know the meaning of rejection.
She is there to help all of creation,
and doesn't abandon even the smallest creature.
This is called embracing the light.
What is a good person but a bad person's teacher?
What is a bad person but raw materiel for his teacher?
If you fail to honor your teacher or fail to enjoy your student,
you will become deluded no matter how smart you are.
It is the secret of prime importance.
You beg to differ with a direct citation of the Tao while attempting to claim its cachée and mystique for yourself?
Have you seen climate records, as read from Antarctic ice cores? They tell a story of not one but many CO[sub]2[/sub] crises that resolved themselves without any intervention at all.
Have you seen climate records, as read from Antarctic ice cores? They tell a story of not one but many CO2 crises that resolved themselves without any intervention at all.
You do realise that it's these records that have the scientists that collect and study this data so alarmed?
"Crisis resolving itself" at CO2 levels nowhere near the present (far above anything in the records you cite) does not support the idea we'll stay in the Pleistocene, a long period of glaciation and inter-glaciation to which all life currently on the planet is adapted. These were not crisis but part of the long term natural variation.
Melting the North polar icecap is a completely different scenario than the last 2 million years.
Now, if you mean to say whatever we do we can't kill everything and therefore the situation will be "resolved" in that way. No scientist, and I doubt anyone in the environmental movement, claims that the world's biodiversity will not eventually recover in tens of millions of years if we continue the current mass extinction to it's further extent possible.
The question is if the species currently on the planet have any value and if we have any responsibility to not destroy them for our own amusement (including our own species).
Is it moral that I destroy your painting or a painting of a great master just because someone can paint more later? If I burned the Mona Lisa would you sagely point out that nothing has been lost and the situation will be resolved by more people painting more stuff, just like plenty of paintings have been lost in the past and people just made new ones. Or would you agree I should go to jail for destroying a thing valuable in itself and also part of our cultural heritage? Or should I only go to jail because I destroyed property?
... But is not the earth and all its species and life systems our collective property, and not in an analogous sense, but our current legal framework: states own land, lakes and oceans (and only through this foundational state property does any individual or corporation get subsigned any property rights to what is fundamentally state property, always restricted and always returnable to the state as punishment, requisition or eminent domain purposes) and collectively managed in inter-state legal frameworks even the things "no one owns" as common-property (international oceans, space, antarctic). And people own states; or so I'm told.
However, even so, destruction of the earths life systems damages my property also, far more than if someone put up ghastly window shutters across the way.
Reply to boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well.
?boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point.
First, it's simply a false understanding to say the biosphere is self-correcting.
Ecosystem stability is measured in the variability of biodiversity, but that biodiversity itself is not self correcting but constantly changing with a "background" level of extinctions, invasive species, as well as antigenic drift within species. Self correcting would connote returning the same state, but the biosphere does not do this even in "normal" times.
The biosphere adapts to changes and does not somehow resist changes by self-correcting.
Now, if you want to reformulate that by biosphere you don't mean the biosphere as such but certain abstract variables, then yeah, sure; but "self-correcting" yourself like that only betrays a total lack of knowledge and respect for the subject matter you are discussing.
Of course, far worse mistake, and not a matter of taxonomy in the slightest, is your belief that "self-correcting" mechanisms of the biosphere can simply be assumed to be robust enough to deal with climate change.
There is zero evidence for this vis-a-vis climate change. If your justification is simply that you have a right to your opinion despite having zero evidence and zero analysis supporting it ... sure, yeah, great justification, hats off to you.
The earth's biosphere only has self-correcting mechanisms of perturbations, for short term and limited changes. A limited amount of pollution can be diluted and / or processed and / or simply tolerated by the biosphere, but those buffers only last for a certain quantity of pollution. Enough CFC's and the dilution and processing of CFC's is overwhelmed and ozone gets depleted, enough ozone depletion and life systems cannot tolerate the sudden increase in ultra violet light (protection from which has existed on earth since oxygen).
Geological history does show long periods of stability as no event or series of events exceeded the buffers maintaining stability. Over long periods of time the earth's systems can be remarkably stable, one geological eon, the Archean, lasting a billion and half years.
However, the geological record also demonstrates what happens when buffers are exceeded: mass extinction and recovery of biodiversity over tens of millions of years.
The "Freakonomics" guys thought they had some great insight when they pointed out that what matters is rates of change. They honestly seemed to believe it had never occurred to any physicist that the difference between a car crash and a normal stop is the rate of change of the speed of the vehicle.
It wasn't a new insight, but it is of course true: the difference between a stable ecosystem in terms of biodiversity and a mass extinction, is the rate of change of number of extinctions.
That mass extinctions are "good" or "bad", there are arguments on both sides. Mass extinctions do "shake things up" and send life on a different direction than it was before, but each one could also be simply delaying complex life emerging and a significant risk of some "great filter" event. However, I don't know any position that argues causing a mass extinction the best we can, as thoroughly as we can, is our duty in order for new and better stuff to maybe evolve later.
"The earth will survive" argument I have only ever heard supporting the position of apathy and indifference to other species and other people.
However, if you are apathetic and indifferent, why speak?
Technically they weren't even talking about BBB. He killed that bill because he had problems with it's temporary programs (which were there because he restricted the topline number), and also because it didn't do enough to reverse the Trump tax cuts. The bill Manchin just killed was his very own deficit reduction bill funded by tax increases, which he said was the "best way" to fight inflation. Fast forward several grueling months of bad faith negotiations and then Manchin suddenly "found out" that the tax increases were inflationary and that he was suddenly okay with a bill that consists solely in drug prices and a (temporary) ACA extension instead. At least, he's okay with it now (but given his track record, he'd probably have some last minute "revelation" that drug prices are inflationary or something leaving us with literally nothing).
Reply to boethius I'm sure Google can help you out in searching for instances of life's self-correcting feature.
Nevertheless, you're right on the money that this ability of the biosphere to right itself after being knocked over (roly-poly toy like) has limits - beyond a certain point, the point of no return, the system collapses into a death spiral.
?boethius I'm sure Google can help you out in searching for instances of life's self-correcting feature.
You did not state life has "self correcting features". There's plenty of self correcting features, from DNA repair to tectonics plats "correcting" mountains by rising to compensate weathering.
You stated self-correcting is a feature of the biosphere so strong that current CO2 changes will be self-corrected like all the others in the ice-core record.
Furthermore, I literally state that the biosphere is self-correcting to short term and limited changes ...
Nevertheless, you're right on the money that this ability of the biosphere to right itself after being knocked over (roly-poly toy like) has limits - beyond a certain point, the point of no return, the system collapses into a death spiral.
So what are you even debating?
This is why scientists (the ones that produced the data you are talking about) are alarmed. That the changes to CO2 levels (and land-use, fish, etc.) we've caused is far beyond planetary boundaries.
This is why scientists (the ones that produced the data you are talking about) are alarmed. That the changes to CO2 levels (and land-use, fish, etc.) we've caused is far beyond planetary boundaries.
The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually.
The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw. High CO2 hasn't been been as much of a threat.
Indeed but it was in a key position to encourage or discourage the efforts of others, and it did the latter, since the 90's or so until now. Very systematically too. The US owns this crisis. It's made in the USA. While the problem is global, the search for solutions is necessarily local. The US opted to deny the problem.
Al Gore was American. How many people knew about global warming outside the community of science nerds prior to his work?
You're overstating it. It was not made in the US. It was made by all fossil fuels users.
The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually.
Untrue statement.
Ocean concentration reaches a balance with CO2 atmospheric concentrations, that it is absorbing and releasing the same amount.
Ocean absorption for the atmospheric concentrations we've reached (higher than in millions of years) is a major ecological problem as it changes the PH of the entire ocean than what ocean life has experienced in millions of years, but we are approaching an acidification level in which in which calcium shells simply don't form. A total catastrophe, not the oceans helping out by eventually solving the problem.
CO2 is not eventually all absorbed the ocean, but it removed from the carbon cycle through weathering, reacting mostly with basalt, in a super long process that takes thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Eventually it is all weathered out, but new CO2 is added to the carbon cycle, mostly, through volcanos and a balance is reached.
The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw.
Again, untrue statement.
Arguably greatest challenge to life was starting and "holding on" in the first place, and the conditions for that were: "When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere" as informed by Smithsonian Environment Research Center.
The very next slide explains: "Three billion years ago, the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing."
I think the knowledge you are looking for is that the earth's atmosphere has had a lot of variation and life has not only adapted to but a main cause of these variations.
By pumping billions of tons carbon into the atmosphere every year for over a century, we are pushing the earth into a "hot house" dynamic where snow is largely missing from both poles, changing the climate significantly to one a large part of current multi-celular life is not adapted, cannot adapt in pace with changes, and will go extinct (as is currently already happening from many other human actions, but climate change is a lot worse as it also affects man-made or happenstance refuges for life).
What's even the purpose of this statement? Even if true that high CO2 hasn't been much of a threat, obviously doesn't even exclude that it's a threat now. Other species have not dug and pumped up vast quantities of carbon, completely disturbing the carbon cycle balance.
Are you suggesting that running this uncontrolled experiment of what happens when a species does dig up carbon and dumps vast quantities in the atmosphere in a single geological moment, that it's somehow less risky because no species has run the experiment before?
Al Gore was American. How many people knew about global warming outside the community of science nerds prior to his work?
It has been part of the national curriculum in French highschool since the 70's. I learnt about climate change at school in 1980. With An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore (2006), tried to break the wall of silence in the US, and it was a good thing to do, but outside the US there was no deficit of information. Climate change was not a controversial idea outside of the US by then.It was so well known that all nations of the world had signed the the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
has been part of the national curriculum in French highschool since the 70's.
I doubt it. In the 1970s it wasn't clear if the climate was cooling or warming. The effect of the Milankovitch cycle wasn't discovered until the mid 1970s.
In the 1980s it started to become clearer that the climate would warm and, as I said, it was a few science nerds who paid attention.
The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually.
But if you know your chemistry fundamentals, why made such an absurd claim. The idea shouldn't even come to mind.
Or, maybe you had no clue what you were talking about, but have since educated yourself a bare minimum.
Which is good, having a basic respect for the subject matter you're discussing is a step in the right direction.
For example, if you cite data collected by scientists, borrowing their work and credibility to make a point, a basic respect would be at least take their theories, models and interpretations (in terms of politics and ethics) of the data, that they collect and study, seriously enough as to not simply dismiss anything you find inconvenient entirely based on a-scientific, hand-wavy, vague truisms such as "biosphere is self-correcting" or then simply false statements like "The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed by the oceans".
Have you seen climate records, as read from Antarctic ice cores? They tell a story of not one but many CO2 crises that resolved themselves without any intervention at all.
The fact, or rather the likelihood, that the climate will settle down to an approximate stability fairly conducive to life in a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years, is not the issue. Life goes on and will go on without humans, and you may think that a good thing.
But some of us are so myopic as to want our children and grandchildren to survive, and do not want the coming century to see a mass-extinction event of 60 -80% of species.Some of us are so limited of vision that we worry about half the major cities of the world being under water.
I don't think it is practical to build sixty meter high dams around our cities, and so it is quite important that all the land ice does not melt.
But never mind. The end of humanity is unimportant compared to the prospect of all the inconvenience of preventing it!
The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw. High CO2 hasn't been been as much of a threat.
What "challenges" to life have existed over the past 4 billion years requires a non-scientific teleology for life, a goal to life in which to be challenged about, which pretty much any scientist would point out is non-scientific anthropomorphism ("all life" doesn't have any goals, as far as science goes, other than what we project on to it) as obviously the only goal available to postulate is making sentient and intelligent life (ourselves) and anything that we suppose goes in that directly is a good thing and anything that doesn't is a bad thing.
So, not a scientific statement and the followup of "high Co2 hasn't been much a threat" is not even clear how it relates to your teleology of life: threat to all life and total extinction of everything? or threat to particular ecosystem epochs ... in which case CO2 rise has been a major threat:
Roughly 251 million years ago, an estimated 70 percent of land plants and animals died, along with 84 percent of ocean organisms—an event known as the end Permian extinction. The cause is unknown but it is known that this period was also an extremely warm one. A new analysis of the temperature and fossil records over the past 520 million years reveals that the end of the Permian is not alone in this association: global warming is consistently associated with planetwide die-offs.
I doubt it. In the 1970s it wasn't clear if the climate was cooling or warming. The effect of the Milankovitch cycle wasn't discovered until the mid 1970s.
The potential heating effect of certain gases such as CO2 was well established in the lab by the end of the 19th century.
The fact that CO2 concentration were steadily growing in the atmosphere was first demonstrated in the 60 by the works of Charles Keeling and others. The first decent model dates from the 1960's as well, and it correctly predicted a rise in global mean temperature.
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee asked Roger Revelle and Keeling, then serving on the committee’s Environmental Pollution Panel, to write a section of a report -- titled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment -- on atmospheric CO2, or the “invisible pollutant,” as the report identified it. Here is a quote from the summary:
« Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. The CO2 produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200 % increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25 %. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere ».
"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase" means that both are increasing reaching an equilibrium: an equilibrium in which CO2 concentrations are higher both in the atmosphere and in the ocean when we burn carbon.
Therefore, in direct contradiction with the statement "CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."
Some of the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but it is through mostly weathering where CO2 is removed from the carbon cycle, and as this occurs and atmospheric CO2 decreases, then CO2 will also then be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere to maintain the balance.
Difficult to get a more direct contradiction.
However, worse, ocean absorbing CO2 is not a "good sink" that helps, but leads to mass ocean death due to ocean acidification. It is a terrifying problem that the oceans absorb a good part of the CO2 we release in the atmosphere, the extreme other end of the spectrum to "oceans will deal with it, nothing to see here".
In short, oceans will not absorb all the CO2 we've released somehow magically solving our problem, and of the CO2 we release that enters the ocean it is in no way a good thing but entirely a bad thing if one cares about other species (and our own).
In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Scientists first began to worry about climate change toward the end of the 1950s, Spencer Weart, a historian and retired director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics in College Park, Maryland, told Live Science in an email. "It was just a possibility for the 21st century which seemed very far away, but seen as a danger that should be prepared for."
The scientific community began to unite for action on climate change in the 1980s, and the warnings have only escalated since.
The environmental movement has been going on a pretty long time spinning the same plans around and around; it is, broadly speaking, become closer to a ritualised mea culpa artistic expression, precisely to avoid effective actions
This is so true. I don't know what kind of timescale you had in mind, but I think this has been true for some time. I was involved with the road protest movement in England in the 90s and it was (on reflection) exactly as you describe. No one really talked about the solutions to excessive car use, which would have involved a discussion about the break up of communities, increasing social isolation, the erosion of self-esteem, urban growth policy, taxation (public services provision)...etc. The question of which diggers we ought to stand in front of seems almost completely unrelated to stopping the pressure to build more roads. It wasn't that no one considered those other matter problems, but no one had any solutions to them.
I don't know what kind of timescale you had in mind, but I think this has been true for some time. I was involved with the road protest movement in England in the 90s and it was (on reflection) exactly as you describe.
Honestly not sure how far back this pattern goes, as there's a selection bias of small victories and momentum in order to support the myth of progress which easily (especially in the good times) pervades everything.
No one really talked about the solutions to excessive car use, which would have involved a discussion about the break up of communities, increasing social isolation, the erosion of self-esteem, urban growth policy, taxation (public services provision)...etc.
Yes, it really all comes down to cars, suburban sprawl and city planning around cars, and most importantly car culture, which I would argue is the ontological basis of Western individualism and consumerism (I am not of this world because I am in a car).
Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing!
Reply to Tate Our chemistry and physics teacher described the different heat retention capacity of different gazes, and then explained that there was a big issue related to that and currently debated in climatology, that the CO2 content in the atmosphere was rising since the industrial revolution, and this would theoretically lead to what she called "global warming" in the future.
That was in 1980. It was the first time I heard about what we would later learn to call "climate change", I guess because "global warming" sounds too scary... Hysterical, right?
Then in the 90's there was all the discussion about the Kyoto protocol. Al Gore, in 2006, broke the news to Americans only, or to the few who believed him, anyway.... The rest of the world was well aware a decade before at the very least.
Al Gore, in 2006, broke the news to Americans only,
Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s. The 1982 movie [I]Blade Runner[/I] was typical. So no, the news wasn't broken to Americans by Al Gore. He was just unusually successful in raising alarm.
No, people don’t know what they ought to do to help, because they think it’s a hoax.
I think a huge part of the issue is that people want governments to solve the problem as long as it doesn't inconvenience them or impact their accustomed lifestyles. Any governments that propose measures such as taxes, restrictions on international travel, restrictions on fuel and power usage and so on, will not be voted in come next election. Maybe democracies are inadequate to solve the problem because there are too many competing interests. But then autocracies are generally corrupt.
Why did the recycling movement in the 90s succeed where action on climate change fails? Was it a much different government administration and publicization strategy, less dilution of memes via internet? Was society simply more organized and leadership competent?
Reply to Tate You're making my argument for me. The wealthy generally produce more emissions than the poor, and since they are wealthy and live the extravagant lives they do by choice, that makes them all the more responsible.
Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s. The 1982 movie Blade Runner was typical. So no, the news wasn't broken to Americans by Al Gore. He was just unusually successful in raising alarm.
Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that that was his fault, of course (more society's), but we all know how politics ruins literally everything.
You're making my argument for me. The wealthy generally produce more emissions than the poor, and since they are wealthy and live the extravagant lives they do by choice, that makes them all the more responsible.
Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that was his fault, of course (more society's), but we all know how politics ruins literally everything.
Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that that was his fault . . .
With his fleet of SUVs and flying all over the world? How could that be?
Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s.
Sci-fi, huh? Strange to rely on movies to get exposed to a leading scientific problem... You guys don't study science in the classroom much, apparently. That would explain your surprise.
Why did the recycling movement in the 90s succeed where action on climate change fails? Was it a much different government administration and publicization strategy, less dilution of memes via internet? Was society simply more organized and leadership competent?
The reason action on climate change failed is that it was strongly opposed by big oil companies and similar interests, who managed to pull the wool over the American public's eyes for decades, and made them believe that it was a "hoax".
most importantly car culture, which I would argue is the ontological basis of Western individualism and consumerism (I am not of this world because I am in a car).
I drive therefore I am.
Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both".
Reply to Olivier5 Not just in the USA. Climate change denial is alive and well with about 20% of people in the Netherlands and that's probably true in most Western countries. Two recent posts making the rounds, an overview of heat waves in the Netherlands since 1900, which ignores the local nature of those, and a table with CO2 levels in the cambria period (which we're 10 times as high as now), ignoring water temperatures at the time that would kill every living aquatic thing existing now but solely pointing out the average temperature was lower. There were also no ice caps so we can imagine what coast lines would look like. All in all, there's a large segment still resisting doing anything.
in the field described it as "a science of wild guesses.".
Wild guesses do not apply in thermodynamics... It is a proven fact that CO2 traps more heat than N2 or O2, the other principal components of the atmosphere. Based in this fact, pumping CO2 in the atmosphere was bound to raise average temperatures.
Many people have been conned into doubting CC for far too long, by a well-oiled machinery of deception.
Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both".
Is a comment from 12 months ago, posting a video for those who can't "google" as you recommend others to do.
The key words in "climate change" are "change" and "climate", as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, through the green house effect that heats the planet, heat that is not good for ice.
How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say?
Did you drill those core samples yourself? Or are you just repeating things that scientists who do that research say?
If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change?
You cannot simply selectively pick someone's credibility, when it supports your world view and just dismiss anything else they say when it doesn't. You must at least provide:
A. you understand their analysis that you think is wrong; if their credible on something else, clearly their analysis is something that at least needs contending with.
B. compelling reasons and evidence that their analysis you disagree with is in fact wrong.
Scientists can for sure be wrong, even whole communities of scientists, but one needs compelling reasons and can't just dismiss their wrong-ideas off hand when convenient without justification. It is critical in such situation to make clear what they get right, why they get it right, demonstrate deep understanding of what they get wrong and compelling analysis and evidence that they are in fact wrong.
For example, Einstein didn't just declare "Newton is wrong! Don't believe anything he said!" but rather demonstrated a deep understanding of Newtonian gravity, why it works well in our local context, a deep understanding of where it maybe deficient, and a new theory that addresses those deficiencies with compelling analysis and proof (without contradicting, but providing a deeper explanation of, whatever is true in the old theory).
Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast).
The Wikipedia article on The Balance of Nature says that one scientist declares that it's an "enduring myth." It's considered an obsolete theory.
However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui?
?boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well.
Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!?
"""
"The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."
— Tate
And then contradict that statement with:
"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law."
— Tate
"""
— boethius
That's not a contradiction.
And, what is clear in the current science is that the amount of CO2 we've released so far into the atmosphere will cause severe damages to earth systems, is already causing severe damages, nothing can now stop that.
What's also clear is that the risk of feedback mechanism (aka. tipping points) is exceedingly high.
And what matters is risk, not guarantees. It is irrational to take an even small risk of melting the Arctic ice-cap and most mountain glaciers and and Greenland. It is irrational to take an even small risk of entering an entirely ice-free climate with the melting of the Antarctic as well.
These are not reasonable risks to take. "100% certainty" is a fossil lobby delay tactic that the gullible fall for (more importantly, a talking point for corrupt politicians knowing they are killing people and destroying the planet for money ... or then just useful idiots financed from the beginning because they're clueless).
For example, let's say it isn't certain as you say.
What is the uncertainty? i.e. risk level.
Why would that risk, even according to your numbers, be worthwhile to take?
That's the standard scientific perspective at this time.
Did you even read what I wrote? My point was you know this because scientists told you.
The same scientists saying that the climate is not self correcting and our modifications to the atmosphere are of extreme concern and may kill billions of people as well as cause a mass-extinction of life on earth.
Why listen to one thing they say, but dismiss off-hand another?
?boethius In my humble opinion, the biosphere is able to self-correct any perturbations from the equilibrium point. There's this concept in physiology termed homeostasis and my hunch is a similar mechanism exists for the living world on the global scale as well.
... Explain how that's somehow not contradiction again?
No need to get testy. A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity.
However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO2 levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui?
The earth system is not stable, there are no negative-feedback mechanisms that return it to the same state.
The earth-system has a lot of buffers that make change slow. Most of the time change and patterns of change are relatively constant and life easily adapts to these changes.
Thus, total biodiversity can be stable over long periods of time, but even then species themselves are not stable but going extinct and new one's evolving constantly.
This apparent stability is due to large buffers in the earths system that slow down change (but are not negative feedback loops).
A better visualisation of the earth's system is simply a large boat in calm water. It seems stable as long as there's no wind, easily confused with a boat at anchor.
A light breeze and it gently floats somewhere else, totally unpredictable which direction, how far it goes etc. Slow enough the boat can easily just lightly beach itself and later free itself, bounce off rocks and docks etc.
The wandering around of the boat represents evolution.
Where the boat is at any given time we can understand as its journey through evolutionary space (each point on the lake represents some possible configuration of the earth's living systems, and the whole lake represents all possible configurations).
It's a very heavy boat, so takes a significant input of energy to crash it.
Such energy inputs only come around once in hundreds of millions of years: production of large quantities of oxygen for the first time, giant asteroid, volcanic traps, or "perfect storm" combination of various disasters.
Crashing the boat onto rocks represents a mass-extinction, the points along the short that require significant momentum to reach representing low-biodiversity configurations of the earth-life-system.
Same analogy can be made with something that's heavy, that rolls, that seems "stable" but someone gives it a nudge and off it goes, compared to an actually stable situation where the brakes are engaged.
CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions.
CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions.
A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity.
The global average temperature is rising at an alarming rate because of greenhouse gas emissions. That's not difficult to understand. I have no idea why the laws of thermodynamics are being invoked, but it's irrelevant.
There are complex variables involved, most of which have been accounted for by climate scientists -- including natural variation. Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. If it was in response to what someone else said, fine -- but you didn't quote them and didn't reference them.
A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics.
Climate change is easy to understand: change the composition of the atmosphere to trap more heat ... and more heat is trapped.
You are confusing basic understanding of a particular issue in a particular subject with modelling the whole subject.
The basic driver of climate change is incredibly easy to understand, and is basic thermodynamics (it's called the green-house effect ... because it's as simple as a greenhouse).
In the 70s there was some debate as to whether another simple effect of pollution, that dust creates shade, would in fact be stronger than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
One does not need to model the entire climate, or understand everything about it, to understand the globe is warming, why it's warming, and why that's bad for humans and other species.
It's really not complicated at all. It would be complicated and require deep expertise to create a predictive model.
However, it is not difficult to understand the mechanism of warming, the data that supports that conclusion, and what climatologists are talking about when they explain climate change in simple terms.
However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions.
According to whom? Where are you getting this from?
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to correspond exactly to emissions. No one has ever claimed that. Why? Because the oceans absorb a great deal of CO2, and plants increase their CO2 uptake -- to name two factors.
CO2 levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO2 levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO2 emissions.
The CO2 has to go somewhere, and it was difficult to predict how efficiently the oceans could absorb new CO2.
However, the oceans absorbing CO2 is not a good thing, as causes ocean acidification.
Likewise, other sinks, like rain forests, that can absorb more CO2 as plants can grow a bit faster with more of their food in the air, is not necessarily a good thing if we destroy those forests anyways, with slash and burn farming for cattle, or then climate change causing massive forest fires, which simply releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
For example, the entire Amazon forest may have already went from being a sink of CO2 to a source.
Edit: Reply to Xtrix beat me to the obvious response, as with the previous response.
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.
We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.
2. The northward march of the timber line has been predicted.
Negative feedback loops, oui?
These are not negative feeback loops. The greenification of the Antarctic would be a massive change the the earth-life-system.
Eventually the CO2 will come down due to mostly weathering over hundreds of thousands of years.
However, this is not a negative feedback loop changing the earth-system back to what it is now.
Mass extinction, followed by a green antarctic, followed by millions of years of biodiversity recovery and potentially returning to the glaciation that we've had recently, is not stability.
Why? A rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] causes global warming which in turn causes greenification that then causes a fall in CO[sub]2[/sub]. That's a negative feedback loop alright!
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries.
You present yourself as "knowledgeable" about ice-ages ... but have not even bothered to read the second paragraph of the wikipedia entry "ice age":
In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.
What would have been the natural pattern if we didn't dump billions of tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere ... is not of predictive value if we do dump billions of carbon a year into the atmosphere.
It's like we're discussing building a damn, and you're explaining how that's not a problem for the ecosystems because the river has been naturally flowing without a problem for the fish for thousands of years, and scientists have already said the salmon come back every year to spawn (it's their instinct).
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.
We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.
Why? A rise in CO2 causes global warming which in turn causes greenification that counters the rise in CO2. That's a negative feedback loop alright!
That's not a negative feedback loop that keeps the system stable, which is the issue: stability.
Negative feedback loop, connotes a a feedback mechanism strong enough to return a system to the same state: maintaining stability.
There is negative feedback, but it is not some sort of loop that returns the system to stability. Some carbon is absorbed by greening the antarctic, but it is a paltry amount compared to what we've emitted so far, and, in any-case, even small compared to other sources of CO2 such as permafrost and rain forests burning away.
It is not a feeback look, but better described as a buffer; absorbs some, like the oceans, slows down warming, but doesn't return the system to its former state.
A feedback loop would be that CO2 increase triggers mad greenification of deserts rapidly absorbing the excess C02 back to equilibrium baseline. This would be hypothetically possible if CO2 was the limiting factor to plant growth; however, it's not.
An example of a feedback mechanism in the earths system is ice melting:
More ice melts in the arctic ocean, more exposed water, more energy is absorbed resulting in more melting.
More ice melts in Greenland, more water absorbing more energy, but also lower the altitude of the ice surface gets, the lower the altitude the hotter, causing more melting (under a certain threshold catastrophic melting will occur).
We're in an interglacial period of a large scale ice age. Specifically, we're at the end of an interglacial awaiting reglaciation.
If we did not change the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
I literally just cited the wikipedia article on "Ice age" explaining this, that we have already delayed the next glaciation by a good 500 000 years due to the carbon we've already emitted.
If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age to a significant (mass-extinction scale) degree (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even exit an ice age completely and melt the Antarctic as well, mass-extinction even harder.
If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age significantly (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even completely.
It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years.
It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years.
So how does that square with the earth's biosphere is "self correcting"?
And, again, assuming you're aware outcomes increase in severity with the warming and have uncertainties (maybe it takes "burning all the coal", maybe it takes significantly less), how are these acceptable risks to take?
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries.
Climatologists are observing glaciers melting and predicting more melting, where are the climatologists predicting reglaciation starting sometime in the next few centuries?
And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions?
It's not a different topic if it's happening in the next few centuries and there's nothing to worry about ... except starting to move our Northern most populations south so they don't get buried in kilometres of ice.
The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
Wikipedia can certainly be wrong, but claiming it is wrong should have more support than simply vaguely referencing something scientists knew in the 80s; and at least one reference to compete with Wikipedia's 3 references for this point.
And neither 50 000 years nor 500 000 years sounds like a few centuries to me.
The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years,
Apologies, can't seem to find one. However, in my defense, since climatologists claim global warming is a fact, they should be able to confirm/counter my claim; after all science is all about making accurate quantifiable predictions.
Apologies, can't seem to find one. However, in my defense, since climatologists claim global warming is a fact, they should be able to confirm/counter my claim; after all science is all about making accurate quantifiable predictions.
nowReplyOptions
There is a delay from CO2 emission to associated temperature increase. Maybe that's what you were thinking about?
I've explained at some length the idea of "supporting your conclusions".
Like, how is Wikipedia wrong on this point, what's the errors in the analysis of the cited sources? ... where are the climatologists with models demonstrating the ice age coming in a few centuries?
The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years,
Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.
I'll have to look at what research they based that comment on.
If an ice age is in the offing, the greenhouse effect could be just what the doctor ordered. The two could cancel each other out and we would've averted a global catastrophe. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to heaven could be paved with bad ones! :snicker:
[quote=William Cowper] God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
If an ice age is in the offing, the grenhouse effect could be just what the doctor ordered.
It means change is ahead no matter what we do. Civilization emerged during a relatively serene period. It's first big test will be whatever happens in the next few centuries.
Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.
I’ll say it once more: not only is this inaccurate, it’s also completely irrelevant and off topic.
We're in an interglacial period of a large scale ice age. Specifically, we're at the end of an interglacial awaiting reglaciation.
Not according to the WIKI entry on Ice Ages:
"Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for around 11,700 years,[47] and an article in Nature in 2004 argues that it might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.[48]"
This suggests that we are around the middle of an interglacial period, not at the end of one. Can you cite a reference for your claim that we are at the end of an interglacial period?
This suggests that we are around the middle of an interglacial period, not at the end of one. Can you cite a reference for your claim that we are at the end of an interglacial period?
"..the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years." here
The conventional wisdom for sometime has been 500-3000 years. The trigger is cold winters in the northern hemisphere.
The conventional wisdom for sometime has been 500-3000 years. The trigger is cold winters in the northern hemisphere.
What "conventional wisdom" is that? Do you have a source? The information from the source you did cite seems to have been cherry-picked by you:
"How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last?
No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years."
"Lasted over ~20,000 years": how long is that 20,000 years, 23.000 tears, 25,000 years? "May have persisted for 17.000 years" May it have persisted for 15,000 years then? Also, it is widely accepted that the durations of past phenomena are not reliable indicators for the duration of subsequent phenomena. At best they are all we have to go on. Hardly good grounds for "between 500-3.000 years, or for claiming that we are at the end of an interglacial period.
C'mon, man. My sources are all books and articles. You're looking for an internet blurb. Be a human, why don't you?
It has nothing to do with "an internet blurb" or "being human"..You linked the source. If you have others, then quote them to back up your claims, Otherwise you cannot show your opinions to be anything of greater authority than those of just one more opinionated dude on the internet.
You linked the source. If you have others, then quote them to back up your claims, Otherwise you cannot show your opinions to be anything of greater authority than those of just one more opinionated dude on the internet.
I linked that source because as far as I know, it represents the standard answer. For some reason the Wiki article is highlighting one article from Nature and not emphasizing the standard range of answers. So I'm looking.
This is a study from 2013 about summer insolation reglaciation triggering. It upholds the standard view that we're fairly close to a trigger point now since we know summer insolation is at a minimum.
If you want a simpler narrative, I would advise a climatology textbook. There are some good ones out there
This is a study from 2013 about summer insolation reglaciation triggering. It upholds the standard view that we're fairly close to a trigger point now since we know summer insolation is at a minimum.
If you want a simpler narrative, I would advise a climatology textbook. There are some good ones out there
The article you linked to in no way supports your claim that reglaciation will start in a few centuries.
The article also in no way contradicts the wikipedia statement that we've already delayed reglatiation by some 500 000 years or more.
The article you link to does not even address man-made climate change, but is studying the natural 100 000 year pattern of glaciation and inter-glacials.
The study investigates the mechanisms of glacial retreat in the natural cycle of glaciation.
Which, if humans interfere with the natural cycle, there is zero reason to assume things will continue as normal simply because that's been the pattern so far, just like if we damn a river there is no reason to assume the salmon will return and spawn in the river if the damn physically prevents them from doing so.
The article also in no way contradicts the wikipedia statement that we've already delayed reglatiation by some 500 000 years or more.
The Wikipedia article is wrong. The same information shows up in the article on the Milankovitch cycle and it's superscripted with "verification failed".
The article I provided does explain that current glaciation cycles are triggered by low summer insolation. That confirms that we are presently near a glaciation trigger. This has been conventional wisdom for several decades.
It means change is ahead no matter what we do. Civilization emerged during a relatively serene period. It's first big test will be whatever happens in the next few centuries.
The glaciation of the globe, if it occurs, will surely counteract the global warming and if we're lucky and smart enough we may even be able to control the climate by regulating CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. From unmanageable global warming to fine-tuning climate, a plot twist worthy of a bestseller, oui monsieur? I'm not averse to taking some (calculated) risks, mon ami! We can, if we play our cards right, make a good friend of a deadly foe.
[quote=Mr. Anderson]But if you already know, how can I make a choice?[/quote]
[quote=The Oracle]Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.[/quote]
The Wikipedia article is wrong. The same information shows up in the article on the Milankovitch cycle and it's superscripted with "verification failed".
Maybe cite what you're talking about, but I'm happy to do it for you:
More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years.[failed verification][failed verification]
The statement you cite (I assume ... because you don't actually cite it) that "failed verification" does not contradict the wikipedia statement on the Ice Age page you say it contradicts.
It's a statement that doesn't really infer anything (just "suggesting" something without any predictive value on the whole system; one factor among many, if it is even vaguely representing something true, which "failed verification" may "suggest" it isn't) ... certainly not about events in the next few centuries which is the point under discussion.
Indeed, right after this statement that "fails verification", the same information I cited from the Ice Age page is cited again:
Earth's orbit will become less eccentric for about the next 100,000 years, so changes in this insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity, and should not decline enough to permit a new glacial period in the next 50,000 years.[38][39]
The thing you claim is contradicted ... is literally repeated the very next statement.
What "fails verification" is "recent work" that "suggests" insolation will increase over the next 25 000 years. Now, this could be just a misrepresentation of the work; for example, one subtle orbital mechanic that does increase insolation by itself, in an overall decreasing trend towards less insolation and (without human interference) reglaciation (as we both agree). But we don't know what the source material says ... because it's not cited (honestly seems like someone inserted some propaganda).
Now, what the very next statement in the Milankovitch cycles says, that a new glacial period may start in the next 50 000 years, is true for the Milankovitch cycle, but does not comment on man-made interference, which the Ice Age page provides this additional context with citation (no "failed verification").
Additionally, what matters is the actual sources, not what is tagged or not in Wikipedia. Someone could tag "failed verification" and then the very next day the source is added and the issue resolved.
We need to actual sources.
You are confusing research into the natural glaciations cycles that have been occurring for the last 2 million years with human interference in those natural cycles and the consequences of that.
Again, if humans interfere in a system the pattern may diverge wildly from what was there before. If we damn a river the patterns of fish migration may stop, even if they have been occurring for thousands of years.
If we remove a mountain in mountain top removal operation, it would be clearly wrong to say the mountain will still be there because the patter has been the mountain has been there for millions of years and plate movement is actually pushing the mountain upwards and making it taller. Yes, the natural pattern maybe that the mountain is getting taller and will get even taller due to plate tectonics ... but that theory of the natural system does not remain true if we go and remove said mountain.
Again, if humans interfere in a system the pattern may diverge wildly from what was there before. If we damn a river the patterns of fish migration may stop, even if they have been occurring for thousands of years.
Yes. I mentioned the computer modeling on this earlier. I think you're attributing a motive to me that isn't there. This was brought up originally to show that the science of global warming is not simplistic. From there we started debating the standard scientific outlook.
I have not proposed that climate change should be denied due to this information.
More recent work suggests that orbital variations should gradually increase 65° N summer insolation over the next 25,000 years.[failed verification][failed verification]
Which neither you nor I are claiming.
We both agree that the planet would normally be heading towards reglatiation (I wouldn't say next few centuries, but going towards that).
The issue at hand is the effect of human interference; in particular dumping billions of tons of carbon every year into the atmosphere and carbon cycle that would not otherwise get there, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than any point in the last millions of years.
Also nothing relevant can be inferred from this statement about insolation anyways (it does not in any-case comment on the state of the climate system as a whole, which is what we're discussing), even if it was true (which, my guess, is there is some truthiness to it, and it comes from misreading an article discussing some subtle orbital effect that, in itself, increases insolation but is minuscule compared to the major orbital mechanics that will be decreasing overall insolation; and then someone dropped in "aha, insolation will be increasing" without citation ... and so makes sense it fails verification).
The statement that "failed verification" (which in wikipedia is only a tag to represent missing sources, which maybe provided by the author of the statement; it is not a tag that means "this statement is false" and has no argumentative use in that roll), does not remotely do what you are claiming, in contradicting:
In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.
The issue at hand is the effect of human interference; in particular dumping billions of tons of carbon every year into the atmosphere and carbon cycle that would not otherwise get there, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than any point in the last millions of years.
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.
We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.
No, it's not simple.
We not only know that our current CO2 emissions will delay reglaciation by upwards of 500 000 years or more, but we also know that CO2 emissions are pushing us out of the current climate paradigm altogether, towards an ice-free planet.
There are always more details that can be modelled, no predictive model is as complete as the natural system being modelled (this is true for all models).
What matters is the confidence of the predictions that can be made with current knowledge and modelling, and then risk assessment.
The risks are intolerably high ... which you seem to agree with.
It would probably be prudent to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, like completely.
So, it's not clear what you're even disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make. If you want to just discuss the physics of the climate and get into nuances that have no relevance to this particular discussion, then there are science and physics forums for that.
You seem to just want to make vague statements that imply global warming is not a problem, might get magically solved, or scientists "don't know everything", to soften the blow, such as we're going towards an ice age in the next few centuries (sounds the opposite of warming! god be praised!), but then just backtrack everything to actually have been completely meaningless and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That's not good faith discussion and deserves no respect.
Where you do make statements that have a baring on the discussion, such as "We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway," they are simply false.
That's just not true. I've explained that several times now
That's what you're statements, like an ice age is expected in the next few hundred years, imply.
Your whole current argument is that there is some doubt as to the next ice age, that human CO2 has not completely disrupted the natural cycle, or then there is some doubt about that. Read your own statements.
Obviously, if the earth may actually cool anyways and the current warming is transitory, that implies global warming is a lot smaller problem than essentially the entire climatology community have concluded.
Essentially all your statements, either about the ice age, or claiming gaps in knowledge (which only matter in the context of this discussion if the uncertainty would change a decision, of which there are no candidates), such as
We are in an ice age guys. Get yourself up to speed.
What other interpretation of this statement is possible than implying interlocutors discussing the catastrophic consequences of climate change do not know we are "in an ice age" which has the connotation of being cold rather than hot.
Likewise, by being derogatory in this matter, that participants do not have an even basic knowledge of the subject (while predicting an ice age will likely, or even potentially, start in a few centuries), that their statements can therefore be dismissed.
I don't think we should back down from stating scientific facts because someone could imply something we disagree with.
As has been explained to you in your thread complaining about the moderation, throwing out a scientific fact that has no relevance to the discussion (neither supporting nor contradicting any position in the discussion, not even your own, which seems to be we should stop all CO2 emissions immediately), is bad faith and adds nothing to the dialogue.
Almost none of your statements are scientific fact, and, this particular example of an ice age starting in a few hundred years, has zero scientific basis whatsoever and is extreme contradiction to what the entire climatology community is predicting.
So, first, in no way factual and you've provided no citations to support your mad theory that an ice age is likely, or even remotely possible, to be triggered in the next few hundred years. So, if you want to play the facts game, which I suggest you do, then the basic rule of the game is "evidence", which you provide nothing remotely supporting your claims.
You're intention is clear: try to throw out statements that make one implication, or just false statements, then ignore criticism or backtrack to your statement being totally meaningless.
For example, that models are not complete is true for all models. To be relevant to the discussion you need to point out what's missing from those models and what decisions might change in a more complete model and how that change is relevant.
However, for climate models, there are no such candidates.
Increasing CO2 beyond anything the earth has experienced in millions of years is a reckless uncontrolled experiment with intolerable risks, already intolerable proven harms to people and living systems we've caused so far, and more precise models have zero candidates of greater precision or then added complexity that would remotely possibly change such a conclusion.
Throwing shade on the models by claiming they aren't complete (as is true for all models) has no relevance to any decision making.
It's called propaganda, not good faith discussion. If you genuinely perceive yourself as not repeating propaganda, then you're a useful idiot to the propagandists that have filled your head with nonsense.
That's really not true. I'm not continuing this discussion with you.
Most of your statements are not even purporting to be facts, and the one's that are you do not support with any evidence, and the one statement you cited an article for does not support your statement.
This was brought up originally to show that the science of global warming is not simplistic.
Yes, it was a lame attempt of yours to get back at me, when I stated the well-established fact that Americans have been effectively kept uninformed and misinformed about climate change for decades by fossil fuel interests.
You took offense and pulled the glaciations out of your rear end to try and prove me simplistic. Remember that the truth may sometimes be quite simple. In this case: the truth is that the US were conned by big oil into disbelieving CC, and what the con men stole was our future.
This simple, easily verifiable truth bothered you for some reason, perhaps because you are American and nationalistic, or perhaps because you personally were a victim of this misinformation campaign so my point felt like a personal accusation to you. Whatever the reason, you tried to muddle the issue by talking about glaciations and posturing as the sophisticated guy in the known... How did that work out for you? :kiss:
At least Germany is working hard to increase climate change in a big way. Increase the use of coal with coal plants that are idle or to be closed transitioned to be back running again. Great Job! :roll:
Germany’s biggest utilities are working to revive their coal operations as Europe’s biggest economy turns to the dirtier fuel in a bid to reduce the use of natural gas for electricity generation.
Under the provision, a total 8.5 gigawatts (GW) of brown, hard coal-fired and a small amount of oil-fired generation capacity, all already, or due to be idled in 2022 and 2023, would be enabled by their operators to provide electricity on demand.
But of course nuclear energy won't do, it's evil...
With Europe scrambling for alternatives to Russian fossil fuels, Germany’s insistence on sticking with a plan to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by the end of this year baffles many outside the country.
Berlin has warned of severe economic damage in the event of a sudden stop to Russian natural gas deliveries, which, two months into the war in Ukraine, still account for 40 percent of Germany’s imports. This dependence on Russia has revived discussion about Germany’s attitude to nuclear power. Some politicians, particularly on the center right, have suggested the phaseout should be delayed. In Belgium, the government did just that last month, extending the lifetime of two reactors beyond the planned 2025 exit. The war also prompted the government to run an assessment in March on whether Germany should and could delay the phaseout. But Berlin concluded it’s not worth it — pointing to a veritable smorgasbord of technical, legal, political and cultural hurdles.
Three nuclear power plants remain active — down from 17 in 2011 — and they’re scheduled for decommissioning at the end of this year.
Three other plants closed at the end of 2021 and are in the early stages of shutdown. All other plants are being dismantled, and can’t just be switched back on: The containment building of the Isar 1 site in Bavaria, for example, is already being taken apart. Any realistic discussion about delaying the phaseout centers around the final six.
The six nuclear power plants generated 12 percent of German electricity last year; the final three produce about 5 percent.
In fact, even other neighbouring countries have asked about this stupidity...
The Netherlands has asked Germany to consider keeping its nuclear power plants open, but admitted the chances of that happening are slim.
Rob Jetten, the Dutch Minister for Climate and Energy Policy, made the inquiry to German Economy Minister Robert Habeck as Europe faces its worst energy crisis in decades.
Well, at least the incoming recession will have positive effects (even if just for a short while and creating other problems). Just like the pandemic had on consumption, for a while.
The fear and hostility towards nuclear energy shows the unfortunate truth that perceptions overrule fact based thinking. And politicians will choose those wrongful perceptions if that means getting the votes of the voters. Moreover, when it has come to nuclear energy, the anti-nuclear lobby has had it's own separate facts and truths about the dangers of the industry.
And if we now know that the use of fossil fuels has effects on the climate, the more outrageous thing is that the actual lethality of burning coal and oil is either not known or just taken as granted as we have burned coal for so long:
Countries with the most prodigious consumption of fossil fuels to power factories, homes and vehicles are suffering the highest death tolls, with the study finding more than one in 10 deaths in both the US and Europe were caused by the resulting pollution, along with nearly a third of deaths in eastern Asia, which includes China. Death rates in South America and Africa were significantly lower.
And btw, the decision for Germany to shut down all it's nuclear energy was made because of a nuclear accident that happened because of a Tsunami that killed 15 000. And the death toll from the Fukushima accident? In 2018, one cancer death of a man who worked at the plant at the time of the accident was attributed to radiation exposure by a Japanese government panel.
When coal plants kill from hundreds of thousands to millions in the World annually and cause climate change, these kind of policy choices are really bizarre.
ChatteringMonkeyJuly 29, 2022 at 16:28#7235460 likes
It's funny and ironic too in so many ways, because no other country probably has done so many investments into renewables and such to actually try and do something about climate change. That is unlike say France for example, but they just lucked out because of their historical investments in Nuclear (before carbon was an issue) which now makes them one of the least Carbon-emitting countries relatively.
It's fear of the bomb... combined with an aversion of technology, human hubris, of which the splitting of atoms is a prime example.
That's how it goes I suppose, ideologies are historically contingent. There is some weird 'logic' to them in the way they evolve over time. When confronted with environmental problems, the green movement latched onto some pre-existing religious myths that seems vaguely applicable. Looking for something familiar is probably not a bad idea if you are looking for a way into the hearts and minds of people.
And then, when an ideology is established, when confronted with some new eventuality, it initially doesn't really matter what the facts are because of the inertia of people believing in a story that has been told in a certain way over the years.
Anyway, what this whole affair illustrates to me is 1) that we don't really have that much collective agency as we would like to think, and 2) that ultimately when a country has to make a choice between the two, energy-security will take precedence over measures to combat climate change.
Reply to ChatteringMonkey France did invest in renewable, though less so than Germany. I think some 20% of our electricity is from renewables now, vs. 40% for Germany.
Indeed, Germany should have kept its nuclear plants. That was a knee jerk reaction.
ChatteringMonkeyJuly 29, 2022 at 20:39#7235840 likes
Reply to Olivier5 Yes maybe that comment wasn't entirely fair towards France... I just wanted to show Germany screwed up because of their ideological inflexibility and despite their best efforts to do 'good'. France is generally a bit less 'fanatic', or maybe more 'lax' than Germany, depending on how you want to frame it... and yet it is still better of energy-wise.
I know France has a decent amount of renewables, I've just been there a few days ago, and the landscape is absolutely filled with windmills along the big highways.
I think France is just fanatic about other things than Germany... :-)
The politics are very different. Clearly the Germans have a much stronger green movement than we do. Sometime it has led them to some pretty absurd decisions like foregoing nuclear energy.
The French greens are quite pathetic, I must say. Historically their only strong and politically smart leader has been Dany Cohn-Bendit, who is... Franco-German!
I do think we (French) should do better there, but ecology can also turn into a political ideology, as fractious and divisive as any which is very much the problem with the French green party.
ChatteringMonkeyJuly 29, 2022 at 21:33#7235980 likes
I think France is just fanatic about other things than Germany... :-)
No doubt :-)
On the green movement, I'm critical of it because I think it could be the one political movement with actual solutions to our current predicament. We definitely need an ecological perspective of some kind going forward. But as it stands, the movement usually doesn't deliver, because I think at base it's a bit confused and can't seem to decide between being a real political player that wants to shape current society, and being this impractical back-to-nature fantasy that can't be realised. It probably should let go of the latter, but then that is what seems to appeal to a lot of people. That's why nuclear power plants are such a hard issue for them, and not only in Germany.
When confronted with environmental problems, the green movement latched onto some pre-existing religious myths that seems vaguely applicable.
With the debate about nuclear, this is true.
But I have to say that many greens have been respectable enough to change their minds about nuclear energy and have not latched on the popular myths.
I think it's a problem for all political parties: when your base intensely believes in some myth which isn't true, they won't start to correct their supporters, even if they know it's not true.
We are seeing now quite clearly that the mantra "we just have to turn to renewable energy sources" isn't the short term answer that we can pick.
ChatteringMonkeyJuly 29, 2022 at 22:26#7236180 likes
I think it's a problem for all political parties: when your base intensely believes in some myth which isn't true, they won't start to correct their supporters, even if they know it's not true.
Yes one of the functions of a political ideology is also that it appeals to, recruits and ties people to a political party. And since people tend to like simple narratives more than say the intricate minutia of public policy, I don't think there's a way around this really.
We are seeing now quite clearly that the mantra "we just have to turn to renewable energy sources" isn't the short term answer that we can pick.
No that's right, yet it'll take a while still until parties will change that mantra... unless of course an energy crisis will take political parties in speed.
I wonder how long it will take political parties to come clean on the myth of progress and perpetual economic growth ;-)
But as it stands, the movement usually doesn't deliver, because I think at base it's a bit confused and can't seem to decide between being a real political player that wants to shape current society, and being this impractical back-to-nature fantasy that can't be realised. It probably should let go of the latter, but then that is what seems to appeal to a lot of people.
I couldn't agree more. It's a newish political ideology and as such, very fractious still, a bit like communism was in its infancy. It hasn't gelled around some practical consensus yet.
So I see now everybody is wasting their time in the glaciation thread when the actual subject is the man made climate crisis we have on our hands now. All you apparently have to do to distract would-be philosophers is start a thread demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about and then they will fall over each other to set the record straight. While interesting, it is a complete waste of time.
Reply to Benkei I am wasting my time there because it will only become possible for humanity to restrain themselves from disrupting their own environment to the point of self-extinction by reaching a much wider consensus than we currently have. To the already converted, there is not much to say except 'farewell'. Do you have anything more to say than criticising your allies?
So I see now everybody is wasting their time in the glaciation thread when the actual subject is the man made climate crisis we have on our hands now. All you apparently have to do to distract would-be philosophers is start a thread demonstrating you don't know what you're talking about and then they will fall over each other to set the record straight. While interesting, it is a complete waste of time.
Although, I didn't participate in the new thread, I don't think it's fair to say those that went and demonstrated the absurdity of the ice age in a few hundred years hypothesis and the science isn't settled! So many unknowns! Are wasting their time.
I think it's important to pick apart bad faith denialist propaganda and show how it works.
In this case, the basic idea behind the propaganda is to impress on the gullible that we can continue business as usual, roll the dice and maybe get lucky with a new ice age in a few centuries (which certainly doesn't sound like a 6 degree warming, mass extinction, very possibly humans extinct, dystopian world with extreme hardships for everyone starting in our life time ... but more, hmm, maybe it gets colder again due to the glaciation pattern continuing! Use that climate data against them!).
A basic schematic of "ok, scientists may have 'a point', but they don't know everything! And the future is uncertain! Sure it would be 'prudent' to stop CO2 emissions, but it's not totally irrational to continue the 'American way of life' since maybe we'll get lucky."
Propaganda that allows the gullible to simply imagine a pleasant future, at least for rich countries, and once fixed in the mind, is a gentle constant lullaby for the soul.
Of course, I completely agree that this should not take up all our time, and I also agree that some people get too focused on criticising the enemy and lose sight completely of needing to coordinate with allies to get anything actually done.
Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, when humanity began pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, global temperatures have risen by just over 1C. At the Cop26 climate meeting in Glasgow last year, it was agreed that every effort should be made to try to limit that rise to 1.5C, although to achieve such a goal, it was calculated that global carbon emissions will have to be reduced by 45% by 2030.
“In the real world, that is not going to happen,” says McGuire. “Instead, we are on course for close to a 14% rise in emissions by that date – which will almost certainly see us shatter the 1.5C guardrail in less than a decade.”
And we should be in no doubt about the consequences. Anything above 1.5C will see a world plagued by intense summer heat, extreme drought, devastating floods, reduced crop yields, rapidly melting ice sheets and surging sea levels. A rise of 2C and above will seriously threaten the stability of global society, McGuire argues. It should also be noted that according to the most hopeful estimates of emission cut pledges made at Cop26, the world is on course to heat up by between 2.4C and 3C.
From this perspective it is clear we can do little to avoid the coming climate breakdown. Instead we need to adapt to the hothouse world that lies ahead and to start taking action to try to stop a bleak situation deteriorating even further, McGuire says.
This is the best most recent summary of the current situation I can find:
Notice both interlocutors are actual scientists that have worked on the issue, have cohesive arguments and shit, don't just hand waive platitudes like the earth is self-balancing (without justification), or ice age will start any century now (without justification).
Notice also the focus on risks.
The most successful propaganda of the oil lobby was convincing (aka. bribing) the media and political classes into accepting the idea that predictions must be "certain" to justify action.
Yet, in their own board rooms they make decisions based on impact x probability = risk.
Indeed, their whole interest in financing climate denial is because non-corrupt politicians making rational decisions based on intolerable risk to experiment with the earth's climate, starting with simply ceasing to subsidise fossil fuels which isn't justified even within their own neo-liberal delusions sans-climate-disaster (we never hear about "the market" needing to function when it comes to these subsidies), maybe low-probability but is nevertheless extremely high impact to their bottom lines, resulting in medium financial risk levels: therefore, justifying investments in mitigatory action on a net-present-value basis for an optimum allocation of resources to protect sunk costs in technology and infrastructure to extract shale, bitumen and deep water (rather than accept fossil extraction scaling down while renewables scale up), as part of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Yet, when people who care about the earth and all who dwell upon the earth and don't even own any shares in oil companies, use the same impact x probability = risk framework to analyse the situation:
Pretty accurate description of the massive forest fires (in particular in rain forests that are evolved without fire as it's usually too wet: see key word "rain"), as well as the civil unrest that goes along with empirical verification of what "unsustainability" entails.
Crews who fought wildfires across London that destroyed more than 40 properties as heatwave temperatures soared have described the conditions as "absolute hell".
Reply to boethius, we have to consider the consequences either way, as well — the risks.
What might happen if we do nothing, and we were wrong?
What might happen if we do something, and we were wrong?
Arguing alone has the same consequences, the same risks, as doing nothing, and that's the way of the deniers.
Arguing alone has the same consequences, the same risks, as doing nothing, and that's the way of the deniers.
This is called false equivalence and is just more propaganda.
Modifying the composition of the earth's atmosphere is high risk.
Not-modifying it is low risk.
To create a dilemma , one requires some problem in the current status quo of the system and so a inherent risk to inaction.
For example, there is risk to heart surgery, I think we would agree on this basic fact.
However, one cannot automatically postulate that there is equal risk to not-heart surgery.
One would need evidence of an actual heart disease of which the heart surgery might mend or mitigate, to start balancing risks (if the heart disease is mild, the surgery maybe higher risk than doing nothing).
Then there is also the costs to consider of the intervention (as resources are scarce). Doctors have a framework for evaluating risk and resource allocation to intervention called "Number Needed to Treat".
Not only is evidence of a problem required (diagnosis) but then there's a bunch of other steps to justify intervention.
At no point is a person with zero-diagnosis or symptoms or other evidence of a medical problem, somehow at sufficient risk of any given disease justifying any given medical intervention.
If there is no evidence of heart disease then performing heart surgery on the basis of simply balancing the risk of no-intervention with intervention and flipping a coin would be criminal.
In the case of the climate, there is zero evidence the climate had some problem our intervention of billions of tons of carbon a year might fix.
Modifying the system in an uncontrolled experiment on the entire earth-life system is completely insane to say that not-doing-that would be of equal risk to consider.
Reply to boethius, we have been, and are, modifying the atmosphere and the surface of the planet.
Laissez-faire, doing nothing, carries a risk.
Doing something (about CO[sub]2[/sub], deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, population growth, renewability, whatever) may or may not carry a different risk.
What's the worst that can happen? Say, if we start actually addressing climate change? Would that (oddly) be worse than doing nothing? Say, is a cleaner environment bad somehow? :brow:
That's an assessment we can't just ignore, regardless of what the deniers say, and they'd have us do nothing, thus ignoring a considerable risk.
Doing nothing would be not-modifying the earth's atmosphere.
Modifying the earth's atmosphere is called radical intervention in the earth-life system.
That Western economics call this radical intervention "laissez-faire" is because they are mostly propagandists due to cold war political intervention in academia (no "laissez-faire" approach to that hot button issue -- and they're damn proud of it!).
And, it's not even a laissez-faire situation even according to their own propaganda, as subsidies to the fossil industry is not laissez-faire but market intervention.
The process of dumping billions of tons of carbon and other pollutants along with more direct destruction of the ecosystems is not some baseline "no intervention" in the earth system.
It is continuous and radical intervention that is inherently high risk compared to actual ecological "laissez faire" policy which would be preserving the pre-industrial economy, or even pre-agriculture economy, or even pre-fire economy, depending on how you want to define interventions in the global earth-life system.
(my bad, thought it was clear enough, but should have been more explicit)
I really don't think we are.
You're saying modifying business as usual is some comparable inherent risk to modifying the earth's atmosphere, that is prima facie balanced somehow and we need equal consideration of both risks.
You simply use a euphemism of "doing nothing" to represent business as usual, in a pretty obvious attempt to trick others into your false-balance-framework or then trick even yourself.
I'm pretty sure we understand each other very well, and are using and understanding the "verbiage" as each means it to.
You simply use a euphemism of "doing nothing" to represent business as usual, in a pretty obvious attempt to trick others into your false-balance-framework or then trick even yourself.
Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that.
If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that.
Reply to Tate Ice ages are irrelevant for the timescale of global warming that we need to deal with now, so it's not a "widening if understanding" but a waste of time. Moreover, your initial comment wasn't about increasing understanding but just a single sentence suggesting people discussing climate change didn't know what they were talking about because they should "get up to speed".
Ice ages are irrelevant for the timescale of global warming
There's no harm in discussing it. We are discussing it in my thread. Josh already put up a quote from an MIT reviewed article from a scientist who disagrees with you.
. If your take away was that the next ice age is relevant to global warming now then you simply cannot read.
You've been continuously abusive. I've made a normal request in the face of your accusation. You can't engage in good faith. I'm ignoring you from here out.
I have come to the (easy) conclusion that you are here to disinform people. Personally i see CC disinformation spreading as a crime against humanity. So I think you should be banned from TPF, if not hanged up.
Reply to Tate I assumed, in good faith, you hadn't read the article and was friendly enough to actually share the link instead of the quoted blurbs from Joshs. If you have read it, you're either incapable of understanding what you read or have the worst case of confirmation bias I've seen in a long time. Take your pick. Nothing abusive about it but you just like playing victim because it's always somebody else's fault.
Fastest growing US cities risk becoming unlivable from climate crisis
Some of the cities enjoying population boom are among those gripped by a ferocious heatwave and seeing record temperatures
Oliver Milman, The Guardian, Wed 20 Jul 2022 10.00 BST
The ferocious heatwave that is gripping much of the US south and west has highlighted an uncomfortable, ominous trend – people are continuing to flock to the cities that risk becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis.
Some of the fastest-growing cities in the US are among those being roasted by record temperatures that are baking more than 100 million Americans under some sort of extreme heat warning. More than a dozen wildfires are engulfing areas from Texas to California and Alaska, with electricity blackouts feared for places where the grid is coming under severe strain.
San Antonio, Texas, which added more to its population than any other US city in the year to July 2021, has already had more than a dozen days over 100F this summer and hit 104F on Tuesday.
Phoenix, Arizona, second on the population growth rankings compiled by the US census, also hit 104F on Tuesday and has suffered a record number of heat-related deaths this year. Meanwhile, Fort Worth, Texas, third on the population growth list, has a “red flag” warning in place amid temperatures that have reached 109F this week.
Cities that stretch across the “sun belt” of the southern and south-western US have in recent years enjoyed population booms, with people lured by the promise of cheap yet expansive properties, warm winters and plentiful jobs, with several large corporations shifting their bases to states with low taxes and cheaper cost of living.
But this growth is now clashing with the reality of the climate emergency, with parts of the sun belt enduring the worst drought in more than 1,000 years, record wildfires and punishing heat that is triggering a range of medical conditions, as well as excess deaths.
“There’s been this tremendous amount of growth and it’s come with a cost,” said Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaption at Tulane University. Keenan pointed out that since the 1990s several states have gutted housing regulations to spur development that has now left several cities, such as in Scottsdale, Arizona, struggling to secure enough water to survive.
“The deregulation is really catching up with communities and they are paying that price today,” Keenan said. “We are seeing places run out of water, no proper subdivision controls to ensure there are enough trees to help lower the heat, and lots of low-density suburbs full of cars that create air pollution that only gets worse in hot weather. We’ve reached a crunch point.”
The sprawl of concrete for new housing, mostly within unspooling suburbs rather than contained in dense, walkable neighborhoods, has helped heighten temperatures in many of these growing cities. The spread of hard surfaces has also led to flash flooding, as Houston found to its cost during the devastating Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
Some cities have attempted to respond to the rising temperatures by planting trees, which help cool the surrounding area, and provide emergency centers where people can cool down, but these efforts are often piecemeal and underfunded, according to Sara Meerow, an expert in urban planning at Arizona State University.
“The extreme heat that cities are experiencing now is caused by a combination of climate change and the urban heat island effect,” Meerow said. “Rapid urban expansion, which means more impervious surfaces like roads and buildings and waste heat from cars and buildings, typically exacerbates the urban heat island effect, which means these cities are even hotter.”
As the US, like the rest of the world, continues to heat up, the climate crisis should become more of a factor when choosing a place to live, with retirees already starting to shun Arizona, traditionally a favored spot for older transplants, according to Keenan.
“We are looking at increased premature mortality, even increased diabetes because of dehydration, cardiac impacts and so on,” he said. “Mortgage lenders are starting to look at the risks of lending for somewhere that doesn’t have a water supply, as that’s not a good investment. Capital markets are getting wise to this stuff.
“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.”
unenlightenedAugust 01, 2022 at 12:11#7245220 likes
“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.”
Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market. Again.
Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market.
Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that.
This is not some sort of safe space for your ego, where your arguments and intentions should be protected from scrutiny.
"Arguing" against your positions is not a "forum pile", it's called debate.
Real intellectual debate is a rational framework for an emotional contest.
Always has been.
This particular forum, by the grace of the mods, is for people who want to actually test their beliefs, argumentation, justifications against the most brutal scrutiny that the internet can muster.
Some of us have not only been here for years, engaging in good faith and sharpening our whits, but were also inhabitants of the previous forum (just "philosophyforum") which was far more rigorous (for various reasons) and essentially serves as this forum's Hades. A dark mysterious nether realm from which have sprung some monsters of the deep.
Why expect submitting your beliefs and argumentation skills to actual scrutiny to be a pleasant experience where the rules should be set to allow you to at least "tie"?
There is no reason, especially if the truth is of any value.
You only expect this because echo chambers built to maintain your belief system operate in this way, but here is not an echo chamber: anyone can participate defending any point of view, attacking any point of view.
Some people here have been following or even working on the climate change issue for years and decades.
You "pop in" to insult our knowledge, tell us to get up to speed.
When your knowledge is demonstrated to be delusional (by reference to actual evidence), you then feel insulted, claim I'm "quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish" ... for participating in open debate, free exchange of ideas, not coercing anyone to utter or believe anything by some government force, but simply making my case in the public forum?
If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that.
The problem with your arguments is that it does not "widen" our understanding, but is simply wrong.
Increased CO2 emissions more than compensate orbital insolation changes on any relevant time scale. There is zero risk of an ice age happening anytime soon.
Whether you're conscious of it or not, your comments are simply a reflection of the new phase in climate denialism which is to down-play the dangers, muddy the waters, try to paint real analysis as somehow lacking using platitudes and truisms that easily confuse the gullible and (in particular) people who want to engage in magical thinking and believe the situation isn't so bad or then will right itself.
For example, in one single sentence you seem to agree we should reduce our CO2 emissions, but even there it is subtle propaganda in using the word "prudent" rather than "necessary to avoid total disaster". Prudent connotes an over abundance of caution, and is not even necessarily a virtue. A "prudent" person may also miss out on opportunities by avoiding risks.
Framing CO2 reductions as "prudent" impresses upon the mind of the conservative idiot that the outcome is not near-certain and maybe the risks discussed would not be realised in business as usual scenario.
For example, it is prudent to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but forgoing a helmet in no way guarantees a brain injury. Indeed, a brain injury is not even very probable if one is a skilled biker that is unlikely to crash.
The situation with carbon emissions is that of a heroin junky taking more and more heroin each trip. It is not merely prudent to stop taking more and more heroin, it is necessary for survival. The probability of being able to survive heroin doses far in excess of anything anyone has survived before is negligible for decision making.
It is not "prudent" to stop CO2 emissions, it is necessary for survival of most people and most species, and a moral imperative.
A recent internet commentator described this new batch of denialism flooding the brain waves as "lukewarmists", which is a good description, but it also still just plain ol' denialism, muddying the waters, and the denial is the actual state of the climate and consequences.
"I don't deny climate change, just all this other stuff so as to result in the same inaction, same as before," is not somehow wriggling out of the denialism (to then participate as some moral and intellectual equal worthy of respect), it is just updating the denialist strategy to the fact everyone can see the consequences of climate change now and it's no longer effective to straight up claim it's not happening (people can see it's happening), so the next best thing is to downplay the consequences, peddle fantasies such as the ice age cycle may "save the day!" based on a total delusional understanding of the climate, but with a few techno-babble words thrown in to impress the gullible.
All your points, their content, how they are presented, trying to undermine people who do know what they are talking about ... while also claiming to be on the same team of wanting to reduce emissions? Is all just repeating propaganda: either intentionally or then as a useful idiot to propagandists who created all these talking points.
Propaganda is not good faith intellectual debate: it deserves no respect, no invitation, no empathy, and no quarter on the fields of whit.
It is academics, politicians, activists, organisers, journalists, who were otherwise good faith, pandering to propaganda and trying to "meet them half way" so at least "something is done", is what got us to the current crisis in the first place.
For, the propagandists were also selling what environmentalists wanted to believe as well: things aren't so bad.
unenlightenedAugust 01, 2022 at 20:08#7246390 likes
Worth remembering: we need to cut about 30 billion tons of carbon — globally — by 2030. This bill cuts 1 billion.
Nevertheless:
This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?
With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.
We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).
That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.
This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.
Military: $7,500,000,000,000.
Climate: $385,000,000,000.
The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Point being, this image says little about the antarctic. Overall, temperatures in Antarctica are increasing well above the global mean.
It's kind of hard to judge from that picture. Some of the cold spots appear to be off the coast, which would make me think the ocean is colder in those spots due to melting glaciers, except why would glaciers be melting in the winter?
Do you have a source that says that overall temps in Antarctica are warmer? I'm not contesting the point. I've just been hoovering up good sources lately.
And why are the southern oceans generally cooler? That's weird.
The bill is expected to pass the Senate next month, after the Labor government secured reluctant support from the Australian Greens, which had pushed for a higher target. And it is being hailed as the most significant piece of climate legislation in a decade, while also being criticized for not going far enough.
It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)?
If I understood the picture correctly, the places were colder than average. And I've heard this argument that climate change can also make some places colder and rainier, but it's not naturally a topic discussed with climate change.
For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad:
Reply to Tate Oh, I don't know Tate, how about the documents about reglaciation you yourself sourced and when we could expect an ice age at the earliest based on that and then comparing that to the IPCC reports on when we can expects coastal areas to disappear due to rising sea levels?
Do you have any more disingenuous questions or is that it?
Reply to Tate 250 million people will be directly affected due to rising sea levels by 2100 and that's assuming we can reach the 2030 goals, which it's quite obvious we won't. When's the next ice age expected again?
Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html
So stop your obfuscation in a misplaced attempt to think you're trying to do science.
If you glance at my thread, I posted a paper that says we may have already passed a trigger point for reglaciation. It's the one that says the Anthropocene started about 6000 years ago.
Next up will be a proposed solution to the 100,000 year problem, which was not addressed in any long range model up to now. It suggests that shutdown of the thermohaline circulation has been triggering reglaciation, not just a minima of insolation in the Northern Hemisphere. Since the thermohaline is slowing now, this means reglaciation is in the cards.
Reply to Tate So at least another 2000 years before we really notice anything. As I said, too late to make a difference and therefore it has no place here.
Reply to Tate it is so, we have current observation and enough data of the past 800,000 years to know it ain't going to happen to be relevant for global warming and possibly not at all for the next 100,000. But then that requires you to actually understand the science.
Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html
If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that.
The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.
If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it?
- Global ban on the production of fossil fuel transportation vehicles from 2030 at the latest.
- Global financial support to people buying electric cars. The more effective the car and sustainable production of those cars, the more financial support.
- Global ban on coal, gas, and other fossil fuel power plants.
- Global government investment into battery research and tech to create power storage solutions
- Global government support for homeowners to install battery technology for automatic power storage management.
- Global government investment in the installation of city-wide solar panels on the majority of roofs.
- Global global initiative for Thorium power plants before fusion is solved or solar panels efficiency reaches viable levels.
- Carbon neutral industry changes (like carbon neutral steel production in Sweden)
- Global government limitations on food production and fishing to sustain the ecological balance, mainly coral reef and algae (since they soak up as much CO2 as the Amazons)
- Global limitation on air travel, maybe even customer limitations to restrict km/year traveled by air.
- Global ban on the oil and coal industry lobbying-money getting into governments, i.e fossil fuel industries cannot "bribe" themselves into being safe from restrictions.
- Global government investment in companies who work on sustainable solutions, for example, Tesla.
- Global "green city" architectural requirements in order to plant more trees and plants integrated with city infrastructure and environments.
- Local food production initiatives, including insect farms as a protein source.
- Meat tax that goes straight back to meat production to push sustainable levels of production and lower numbers of animals in the chain. Part of it also goes to lab-grown meat research and development.
- Increased penalty for people starting wildfires, i.e maximum sentence, life in prison. The consequences of such crimes are too severe for the entire world and in areas with drought. It will become an annual problem that will escalate. Governments also need to demand land owners have counter-measures in place, if not, penalties or risk of losing their land.
- Penalize anti-climate-research speech (climate deniers), and classify it the same as hate speech in order to block the spread of misinformation and disinformation (yes, this thing is too serious to warrant any free speech bullshit arguments to protect some uneducated morons who won't even survive to see the consequences of their actions).
Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our time?
Republicans and similar people in other nations. General conspiracy nutcases. Boomers who are stuck in conservative bullshit and are too fragile to accept change. Millennials who are too occupied with their own narcissism and ego to let anything distract them from upholding a perfect image of a successful life. Gen Z's too hypnotized by TikTok during their development to be able to have a normal working brain that isn't too distracted by dopamine deficiency and the inability to stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.
I would say that the problem isn't people who actively work against fixing this, but the ones who ignore even trying to. Those are the majority and those people could change the world in an instant.
and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.
Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to.
Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to.
It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow our body of knowledge.
It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow out body of knowledge.
There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability.
The problem in the world today is that too many think their opinion or knowledge matters regardless of how informed that opinion or knowledge is. The narcissism of today has cluttered discussions on any topic, introducing noise of irrelevant bullshit because people think just expressing an opinion is just as valid as expressing an informed opinion. It's the jealousy by common folks towards informed people that have created a world where informed people are regarded as some low-class annoyance and the ignorance rising due to this as people shut their ears off and instead start to believe that their own opinion has the same value as informed people's opinions is seriously damaging to the planet and the quality of life in general.
Since politics always focus on the lowest common denominator we now have a world where expert opinions get ignored and uninformed bullshit gets promoted.
We don't grow a body of knowledge in this environment before we return to a better established hierarchy of knowledge. Where informed people, education, experts, and actual facts are handled with care and dignity. When actual rationality and wisdom are regarded as virtue again.
It's the path of taking adequate epistemic responsibility. Knowing when to shut up and not express an opinion is just as rational and morally responsible as making informed questioning of a broadly accepted idea.
There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability.
Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. Also the idea that we can quickly de-carbonize is a fantasy it seems. The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, but also, the unwillingness (due to the perceived unpopularity) to promote the idea that we (in the "developed" nations) should all use much less energy; drive much smaller cars, use public transport, do without air-conditioning unless absolutely necessary, stop traveling overseas, choose locally grown foods etc.
This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly.
Universal cooperation is a pipe dream. Also the idea that we can quickly de-carbonize is a fantasy it seems. The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets,
I agree. Best to do what we can, and prepare for the inevitable. If I were to be around for the next couple of hundred years I suspect Colorado will become like current day Las Vegas environment, largely vacated as people pack up and move to Canada. Miami may survive as a kind of Venice.
"solutions" would be too unrealistic at this stage it seems
Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius.
Not if there's a collective threat happening. We will not see collaboration until we seriously get to experience the first consequences. We've already seen how a large portion of politicians and the general public have shifted into grasping the magnitude of the dangers of global warming through this summer's heat wave. And with worse and worse heat waves, more drought, more fires, and unstable weather and storms as a follow-up, I think we will see better universal cooperation when climate refugees, food supply energy problems, heat wave deaths, houses destroyed in storms, and so on gets worse. Humanity won't do anything until they have a gun to their head.
The "political" part of the problem is the promulgation of impossible targets, but also, the unwillingness (due to the perceived unpopularity) to promote the idea that we (in the "developed" nations) should all use much less energy
This is the problem with representative democracy in a time when we have more demagogues than actual politicians. They do anything to keep their power and the public is too stupid, too uneducated or easily fooled by people with power over them to be able to vote for something of actual value and win that over. This is why the general public needs to experience a catastrophe before they would vote for politicians that focus on actual solutions.
Let the people burn and then they might want to fix the problem. :shade:
This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly.
The problem is that innovation doesn't get enough funding. There are teenagers inventing water cheap water filtration systems that were earlier not invented because there wasn't much economic incentive to do so. There is a lot of innovation going on in the energy sector that gets so little funding that they cannot come into volume production or into collaboration with other technologies. All while strategies are formed based on previous volume-produced solutions.
Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius.
But here's the interesting question to everyone.
Yes, it's a problem. But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range?
Yes.
And here do note I'm talking about coping with the problem, not solving it. Because that I think we as humanity will do. People should understand the difference between coping and solving something.
I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt.
Southern California is one example: Even without climate change, it would be basically a desert environment just as Baja California, but moving rivers has made it what it is now. So if it, thanks to climate change, would go back to an environment like Mexico, could people still live there?
Yes.
Would the society collapse? No.
People live in Mexico. A lot of people do live in environment that basically are or would be deserts.
And this is actually quite a scary thought: even if we really fuck it up with our response to climate change, if we really don't come up with real solutions, we will surely come up with something and it's not the richest nations that are going to hell in handbasket, we will just go where things suck for us. Yet our societies aren't on the verge of collapse with threats of civil war (or those already going on). The real victims are those societies that are there already. We'll cope with our mediocre watered down solutions.
But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range?
Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break.
I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt.
How exactly do you think the problem of climate change came about?
Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break.
The future for the next 10,000 years isn't our problem. Or to put it correctly, doesn't happen because of just our generations.
I don't look at it as a moral challenge. It's about the fate of a species I've come to love.
Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose.
Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose.
:fire: Welcome to the Anthropocene! :fire:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/20/world/rivers-lakes-drying-up-drought-climate-cmd-intl/index.html :eyes: :mask:
There is no definite determination what causes the global warming. We like to blame ourselves, (but leave me out of that please, I take no blame), for burning too much carbon. True, I shan't argue that, it contributes to global warming. But I am not convinced that that alone is the only contributing factor.
I would recommend you spend more time with counter-arguments. This one in particular is very old and, in my view, long refuted. Unless you're saying that warming isn't completely due to human activity and that nature is involved somehow -- which is a truism.
The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.
The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.
Indeed a graph is indeed helpful.
For people that are unsure what to make of it:
We breaking out of an over 2 million year pattern that nearly all complex species and ecosystems are currently adapted too, the pace of change is also unprecedented, going into the complete climate unknown.
But to make matters worse, even though there are large up's and downs with glaciation and inter-glacial periods (within a long term pattern ecosystems are adapted to), the pace of change of these glaciations and inter-glacials is about 1 degree per 1000 years at the fastest, resulting in steep but still noticeable slopes on 800 000 year time line ... whereas today it is vertical line.
So, not only are we going somewhere we really don't want to go, we're going there faster than the climate has ever shifted in millions of years.
To make matters worse, in the previous glacial-interglacial shifts, nothing came along and "softened up" the ecosystems causing wide spread damage before and during the relatively gentle temperature rise or decrease, so ecosystems were at their full capacity to deal with the (extremely slow, relative to today) change.
We are running 2 global climate experiments while at the same time just straight up destroying ecosystems directly with logging, fishing, agriculture, urban sprawl, damning, pollution of all sorts.
god must be atheistAugust 23, 2022 at 01:16#7320420 likes
Simple question: in the two graphs above, on both of them, CO2 is shown as going from 300 to 400, on a vertical line, whereas temperature remains hovering around Zero, not increasing at all much over zero.
Why is that called then a global warming? If CO2 is human-related, and the temperature does not rise, to me the only conclusion you can draw is that human activity does not make the temperature rise.
Look at the graphs. It is a clear, unambiguous depiction. CO2 rises, temperature does not.
Look at it again, if you don't believe me. The brown line (CO2 concentration) increases 30 percent, the blue line (temperature) remains at the same level.
I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.
I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot.
I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot.
If you look at the historic cycle, you're seeing the temperature leading the CO2 change. When the oceans cool, they absorb more CO2, and same thing for warming.
The last lead up to the present is showing the opposite: CO2 rise first, and then temperature will follow. There's a delay between CO2 emission and temperature rise.
The way we know we've already altered the climate isn't from looking at that kind of graph. It's from computer modeling that predicts what the temperature would be now without the CO2 we've put up. Still, some scientists argue there could have been other causes, but they're in the minority at this point.
I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.
I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot.
:gasp: :rofl:
Yes, so I guess we can throw out all that consensus— you’ve discovered something all the world’s experts have missed. Please take your discovery to a local climatology department and explain to them that clearly human activity isn’t affecting climate change.
Or you could stop and think for three seconds about whether your statements are ignorant and embarrassing. Your choice.
Just a result from a quick Google search about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:
___ Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?
The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
___________
Still, some scientists argue there could have been other causes, but they're in the minority at this point.
That's precisely my point. Global warming had become and has been heavily politicized. And in its drag it politicized science.
Now we look for data that serve a political movement. Not in the service of truth.
So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.
The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety; and it serves a political purpose which skews the scientific finding's meaning. Furthermore, the politicization has bent minds as well, who swear by a definitive explanation that is not at all necessarily the truth.
At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety
We don't usually require 100% buy-in before we accept scientific consensus. Hundreds of scientists the world over have looked at the question and come up with the same answer: we're changing the climate.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 03:12#7324990 likes
Zealotry has set in, and yet scientists are as free as they ever were to investigate.
Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish.
Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish
Well if that's true, we're hopelessly in the dark about pretty much everything. Let's go back to the Stone Age and start over.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 03:15#7325020 likes
Hundreds of scientists the world over have looked at the question and come up with the same answer: we're changing the climate.
This is meaningful only if you know the number of scientists who have also looked the question and come up with a different answer. Without supplying that number, the "hundreds" alone is completely not indicative of anything.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 03:21#7325040 likes
Well if that's true, we're hopelessly in the dark about pretty much everything. Let's go back to the Stone Age and start over.
You're turning into an Xtrix with your snide remark and ignoring my arguments, rendering them moot by assuming they are ridiculously stupid. They are not.
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone.
Of course I have no data or theory to back this up. It is complete conjecture on my part. But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing.
we're changing the climate
— Tate
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone.
Ok.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 03:50#7325100 likes
I studied the charts. It is clear that the vertical scales are arbitrary as far as comparison goes. The only thing that can decide what precedes what is the direction of the slope (upward or downward from left to right) of the two colours.
You were quite right in determining that temperature change (historically) determined the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The remarkable thing I wish to point out here is that SOMETHING precipitated the temperature change. It became an accelerated process; the cooler, the less CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer, the more CO2, and the CO2 concentration also helped in the cooling and heating process. But the change in direction was never a function of the effect of the CO2 concentration. SOMETHING ELSE effected it.
Do we know what that something else was? this is not a rhetorical question; please, Tate, if you care, tell me just the fact whether we know what that force of heat energy sink or source was.
If we know what it was, then we can look for it in today's world.
If we don't know what it was, then we can't be so sure that it's not acting right now.
This actually a empirical evidence to support my theory that global warming is not purely man-made. And without your graph I would not have discovered this evidence.
Another way to look at it is that temperature did change over time. If it were only a function of CO2 concentration, in an accelerated process, the slope of the curve of temperature would never change from up to down, and from down to up as we proceed left to right on the timeline. Yet it does.
This is clear indication that there are forces other than man-made that make global warming and cooling.
Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY.
Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me.
Do we know what that something else was? this is not a rhetorical question; please, Tate, if you care, tell me just the fact whether we know what that force of heat energy sink or source was.
Yes. The Earth's axis wobbles. It goes around in a circle over a period of about 41,000 years. There are times when the axial position points the northern hemisphere further away from the sun. Under the right conditions, this will initiate glaciation due to build-up of ice which reflects light back out to space. Then the oceans cool and absorb CO2, cooling things down even further. All of this is possible because we're in a large scale ice age characterized by oceanic currents that allow "deep water.". This is water that never comes to the surface and so it stays cold, cooling the surface.
Another factor is the Earth's orbit, which is sometimes elliptical, and sometimes more circular.
This is clear indication that there are forces other than man-made that make global warming and cooling.
Of course. The Earth's climate changes all the time because of natural forces. It wouldn't just stay the way it is now whether we influence it or not.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 04:16#7325130 likes
In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.
My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. We don't know what effected them, and what the forces were; so we are not at a liberty by logical and scientific thought to dismiss those forces as not being a part of today's global climate change.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 04:27#7325160 likes
Aside from the causes (whether they were only man-made or a mix of man-and-nature), the alarmist attitude of species extinction and human extinction can be brought to be questioned.
The carbon dioxide effect is huge, as per the sudden unprecedented increase of carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. But it is not an infinitely progressing increase. It will level off somewhere, hopefully at a spot that causes temperatures and climates that still allow biological life forms to survive, and human beings to survive.
After all, if the climate becomes a killer, then human population will quickly decrease, and some surviving members will not produce an ever-increasing number of CO2 molecules; these people may be high-ranking government officials, men and women, and their spouses, who hide and survive in bunkers.
The flora will thrive in the hot, carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. They will turn the excess carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fibres, sugar.
Sooner or later the climate returns to the temperate behaviour that supports complex life.
In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.
We don't know what effected them, and what the forces were; so we are not at a liberty by logical and scientific thought to dismiss those forces as not being a part of today's global climate change.
We do know what the forces were. I just described it to you.
We do know what the forces were. I just described it to you.
My impression was that you said the causes we suspect are insufficient in explaining the phenomenon. This leads me to believe that there were forces other than wobbling and deep water currents. Your kind explanation was clear on that. So the statement "we do know what those forces were", is, I am sorry, false.
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 04:35#7325240 likes
Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.
This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution) Quoting Xtrix
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
My only worry is that we could be barking up the wrong tree so to speak. There's a really good correlation between CO[sub]2[/sub] levels and global average temperatures; it seems so obvious what's happening and therein lies the rub. What if this is a case of 3[sup]rd[/sup] party causation i.e. tertium quid (an unknown factor X causing both rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] and global warming?
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 11:59#7325970 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Precisely. That's what I've been advocating, too, on these pages. Only problem is, Agent Smith, we haven't found this Agent X that causes both. Nobody is even looking for it, the scientific community is so complacently satisfied that CO2 increase is what causes global warming, and that it's human created.
Precisely. That's what I've been advocating, too, on these pages. Only problem is, Agent Smith, we haven't found this Agent X that causes both. Nobody is even looking for it, the scientific community is so complacently satisfied that CO2 increase is what causes global warming, and that it's human created.
When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO[sub]2[/sub] bubbles out!
god must be atheistAugust 24, 2022 at 19:35#7326900 likes
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO[sub]2[/sub] is beneficial.
CO[sub]2[/sub] is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO[sub]2[/sub] is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO[sub]2[/sub] is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO[sub]2[/sub] in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO[sub]2[/sub]-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO[sub]2[/sub] policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works whatever the causes are.
"Don't Panic" and letting science speak with minimal bias. :up:
The "no evidence" claim seems a bit sketchy. (I'm not up to date on the latest, though.)
As far as climate models go, the scientists do the best they can; declaring that known limitations means no effect or no concern would be a non sequitur.
The "CO[sub]2[/sub]" and "adaptation" comments seem to confirm anthropogenic climate effects (otherwise somewhat or partially irrelevant, the exercise isn't just to provide breathing air for plants).
From there to declaring "There is no climate emergency" isn't quite justified, premature, well, unless the real message is "Don't Panic".
Is there reason for concern? Yes.
There are other parts of the equation, like deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, biodiversity, population growth, renewability, ...
Weigh best- and worst-case scenarios?
Assess appropriate adaptation and mitigation efforts?
god must be atheistAugust 25, 2022 at 17:11#7330170 likes
Inside Climate News:But despite its measured tone and its list of supporters with impressive-sounding titles like professor or doctor, the declaration isn’t what it appears to be, several career climatologists and disinformation experts told Inside Climate News.
Rather, they said, the post seems to be the latest iteration of a broader disinformation campaign that for decades has peddled a series of arguments long discredited by the scientific community at large. Furthermore, the experts told me, the vast majority of the declaration’s signatories have no experience in climate science at all, and the group behind the message—the Climate Intelligence Foundation, or CLINTEL—has well-documented ties to oil money and fossil fuel interest groups.
So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.
The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety
Let me clue you in: scientists the world over have indeed taken into account natural variation and natural phenomena. The rate of change we see is due to human activity -- namely, deforestation and the burning of fossils fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Not complicated. Nothing political about it. No one is saying human activity "alone" accounts for everything. It accounts for the rate of change we're seeing, as is obvious from the graphs already given alone.
You have it backwards: the reason why anyone would be compelled to deny this or suddenly get "skeptical" about the consensus is for political reasons -- not scientific ones. That makes you more of a puppet for the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign than anything else. Or you're just incredibly ignorant.
Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish.
A climate denial talking point. More conspiracy theories.
So the overwhelming evidence is faked because scientists get government funding...so that the governments can take over the world by pushing for green energy. Makes perfect sense.
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone.
"Created by man alone" is a bullshit statement so you can weasel out of an embarrassing argument. "Natural forces" have been accounted for. The rate of warming we see is due to human activity.
Here's a tip: whatever you view as a discovery -- i.e., a hole in the "theory" -- stop for a few seconds and ask yourself if perhaps this has been thought of by people who have studied the issue their entire lives. Then do a quick google search to see what they say about it. You'll find answers. Do that BEFORE making a fool of yourself on the internet.
But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing.
Who? Where are their publications? Who are they? I can think of a handful of oil-funded scientists who are a laughingstock in the science community and have been debunked over and over again...do they count? Is that really what you're referring to?
Why anyone would go with these idiots over the overwhelming evidence is beyond me -- unless for political reasons, which is usually the answer.
Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY.
Yes, we can and we do. Volcanoes, clouds, water vapor, Earth's trajectory, etc. To bring you up to speed: this has been studied for a long time by people called climatologists.
Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me.
Your choice of words? No -- your ignored and arrogance.
Yes, MY thinking capacity is "seriously lagging and lacking," says the guy who thinks he's cracked the case of climate change all by himself. "We can't rule out natural forces!" True, I don't know how else to deal with this other than ridicule. I think it's appropriate when it comes to such pomposity.
And I never claimed to be a "philosopher," nor do I want to be.
In conclusion: Current mainstream scientific opinion is that the CO2 concentration increased, and that was a product of human activity. This causes global warming.
My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today.
And you wonder why you get ridiculed. I guess I'll do the work for you:
97 percent of working climate scientists agree that the warming of Earth’s climate over the last 100 years is mainly due to human activity that has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Why are they so sure?
Earth’s climate has changed naturally over the past 650,000 years, moving in and out of ice ages and warm periods. Changes in climate occur because of alterations in Earth’s energy balance, which result from some kind of external factor or “forcing”—an environmental factor that influences the climate. The ice ages and shifting climate were caused by a combination of changes in solar output, Earth’s orbit, ocean circulation, albedo (the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface) and makeup of the atmosphere (the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone that are present).
Now stop here and ask yourself whether you still believe scientists haven't considered "natural forces." Maybe -- just maybe -- they have considered just that, for the last 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years or so...
Or you can go on believing you're onto something they've all missed. Again, your choice.
Anyway -- to continue:
Scientists can track these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provide evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago. The ice cores have shown that rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures are closely linked.
Scientists also study tree rings, glaciers, pollen remains, ocean sediments, and changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun to get a picture of Earth’s climate going back hundreds of thousands of years or more.
...
Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon molecules from different sources have different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei; these different versions of molecules are called isotopes. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources. Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.
I'll leave you to read the rest. Interesting stuff for those actually curious about climate science.
Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
— Tate
Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.
This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution)
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
— Xtrix
You're embarrassingly silly. That video is from the TV program called "The Newsroom". I posted it because I thought it was funny -- notice the little laughing emoji at the bottom?
Of course, like most climate deniers, you show up believing that climate "alarmism" is a problem, and thus you're so quick to jump at any opportunity to "refute" it that you failed to even notice any of this. Not surprised.
god must be atheistAugust 26, 2022 at 05:07#7331860 likes
You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.
There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No.
You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow.
At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise.
god must be atheistAugust 26, 2022 at 05:46#7331940 likes
Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.
https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units.
If under constant pressure the specific heat of air is higher than the specific heat of co2, then the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.
Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.
If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims.
No matter what Xtrix claims, I am NOT DENYING climate change or global warming.
The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Therefore the CO2 increase and the global aveage temperature increase are coincidental, not causally related.
No arguments.
god must be atheistAugust 26, 2022 at 05:56#7331960 likes
In light of the above facts: the heat retention of the atmosphere is not due to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. Whoever came up with that needs to be questioned.
But the increase in average temperature of the globe's atmosphere is undeniable.
Therefore, since the cause is not carbon dioxide increase, the cause must be something else.
You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.
Your incapacity with logic is alarming. Here you agree humans DO have an impact. You just want to question how much.
But if there is a natural cause of warming as well, then that simply says humans would have to do even more to mitigate climate change by now cutting back even harder on carbon.
Use that Mensa brain of yours. It isn’t difficult to figure out. The more the natural background warning, the more we then have to do ourselves.
god must be atheistAugust 26, 2022 at 06:08#7332000 likes
Reply to apokrisis My logic has not said anything how to mitigate the changes. Your logic is taking into consideration things you imagine I said but I did not say.
I really, but really wish you guys would not use logical fallacies.
Here's my claim again, and please DO NOT READ INTO IT ANYTHIING THAT IS NOT THERE. I ask you because this is a philosophy forum, and we have to stick to the rules of philosophy.
My claim: Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes.
End of my claim.
Understood? Please don't put words in my mouth I have not said. Please don't assume things I MUST think according to your fantasy life, and then claim that your fantasy is reality.
Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes.
Maybe I missed this but do you have a science-backed view about whether the background natural trend is in the warming or cooling direction?
No climate scientist disputes there is natural variation. Back in the 1960s, the most likely scenario was taken as that we were overdue for a return to a glacial, for instance.
But again I return to the logic of a position in which natural causes indeed contribute added change in one or other direction.
It is either the case that nature is warming, and therefore we humans need to cut our own climate contribution even more sharply as nature isn’t going to help us out here.
Or nature is cooling, and thus the fact we are already seeing such a sharp increase in warming means our human contribution is even more potent than we think - and so again we have to cut back harder.
Give us the benefit of your mighty Mensa brain and tell us how these conclusions might be in error?
I hope this whole climate change affair isn't a detective novel - all the evidence points to one person but in the end the culprit turns out to be an another, someone who we thought couldn't possibly have committed the crime. :snicker:
unenlightenedAugust 26, 2022 at 07:21#7332070 likes
Some new evidence in this argument, taken from established scientific measurements of heat retention by gases:
This is evidence only of your ignorance of very basic science. Specific heat is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a substance, usually measured in units of joules of energy per kilogram per degree centigrade. Thus the lower the specific heat, the higher the temperature that will be achieved by the absorption of a given amount of radiant energy.
But this has exactly nothing to do with the insulating effect of CO2 which rather depends on its transparency to higher frequency radiation and relative opacity to infra red. The suns rays penetrate the atmosphere easily to heat the ground that absorbs them, but the heat is reradiated as infra red which is more absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus the 'greenhouse effect' is more of a 'duvet effect' preventing heat loss.
unenlightenedAugust 26, 2022 at 07:47#7332120 likes
I am interested if you can shed any light on your own motivation for rooting out such 'scientific facts' that you clearly have no understanding of, in order to support a contrarian position you are incapable of making a meaningful judgement of? Apart from the hubris of imagining that scientists have no idea what they are doing, such that your 30 second google can put us all straight, there must be some reason why this is your focus rather than building a better mousetrap or whatever.
In 2013, research published in the journal Science analyzed even earlier temperatures, dating back 11,000 years. The conclusion was the same: our planet has warmed faster in the past century than at any time since the end of the last ice age.
The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.
But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.
Reply to apokrisis How fasinating. Are we expecting the two oppsing forces (natural cooling effect due to earth's orbital characteristics vs. global warming) to cancel each other out? Net effect = normal climate.
Evidence for this could come in the form of temperature rising but being lower than expected for the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere.
The study also revealed that for the last 2,000 years Earth has actually been in a natural cooling period in terms of its position relative to the sun.
But this natural cooling has gone unregistered due to unprecedented warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, the paper explains.
I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000.
This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility.
Are we expecting the two oppsing forces (natural cooling effect due to earth's orbital characteristics vs. global warming) to cancel each other out? Net effect = normal climate.
If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….
But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back.
I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000.
What are you on about? In which narrative could humans be considered responsible for pushing the Earth father from the Sun these past 2000 years?
This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility.
Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.
The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented.
Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.
The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented.
Let's try to stay civil.
unenlightenedAugust 26, 2022 at 10:49#7332460 likes
Reply to Agent Smith Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it.
The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years.
What are you on about. The paper is talking about natural cooling due to orbiting distance to the Sun. I pointed your confusion out and yet you still don’t get it.
The general pattern of high-latitude cooling in both hemispheres opposed by warming at low lat- itudes is consistent with local mean annual insolation forcing associated with decreasing orbital obliquity since 9000 years ago (Fig. 2C). The especially pro- nounced cooling of the Northern Hemisphere ex- tratropics, however, suggests an important role for summer insolation in this region, perhaps through snow-ice albedo and vegetation feedbacks.
Sure human agriculture and firing of the landscape could have had an effect. So could the still earlier hominid culling of the planet’s megafauna up to 40,000 years ago - although whether this added to net cooling or net heating depends on whether the hit on methane - the loss of megafauna farts - or the loss of snow albedo from increase tree growth made a bigger difference - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502540113
But who cares about ancient history. We know the climate is a balancing act of many factors. The issue here is that it doesn’t matter if nature has some underlying trend going on - unless it is abrupt and imminent. And it doesn’t matter if humans were “guilty” of impacting the world in small ways before the Industrial Age and fossil fuels.
So what exactly is your point? Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” designed to suggest that somehow these other things somehow make a difference to the need to react urgently to the current human-caused global heating crisis.
That's it's a virtue to remain flexible. If we've been influencing the climate long enough that we concealed a 2000 year old cooling trend, then cutting down on fossil fuel CO2 emissions, while very important, won't be enough to address the problem. We'll need to start scrubbing at some point if we want to control our affect on the climate. We need a new energy source. It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions.
If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….
But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back.
Don't be so dismissive but, yeah, unmanageable complexity is the norm, simplicity is just us daydreamin'.
I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.
Yes, which is the latest slogan of climate denial. "The climate is always changing." "It's happening, but not due to human activity." You fall into the latter slogan, with a slight tweak -- you want to use the word "entirely" instead. Every scientist will concede that warming doesn't occur ENTIRELY because of human activity -- that would be absurd. If that's your only contribution to this discussion, it's a truism. But you go further than that, making ridiculous claims about CO2 and natural "forces," all of which have been dealt with by climatologists for decades.
One doesn't have to deny that climate change is happening to be considered a climate denier. There are all types.
There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No.
Yet you can write two more posts, spouting nonsense. Got it.
You have no argument, and probably didn't read most of what I wrote. If you had, you'd see it wasn't "my" argument -- it's the argument and evidence put forth by NASA, NOAA, climate websites, university departments, etc.
So in other words, this is just a childish way to get away from the fact that you either don't read or don't have an argument.
On the other hand, you have plenty of psychobabble to spew:
You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow.
:snicker: I am this, I am that...thanks for your diagnosis.
"Dissent." lol. A person on the Internet who's completely ignorant about climate science and conjures up bogus theories about CO2 does not constitute scientific dissent. Sorry.
At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise.
I never once "swore" not to reply to you -- you made that up, or misread what I wrote -- the same way you misunderstood the video posted from a TV show. Seems to be a theme with you. Try reading a little more carefully.
If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims.
I'm actually embarrassed for you. It's as if I'm watching a kid walk into a physics or chemistry department and informing everyone about how wrong Heisenberg was...and then confidently concluding with, "Any questions?"
The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
No, the physics says quite the opposite -- you're just ignorant.
You can actually test it yourself, by the way. Experiment at home with CO2 versus ambient air and see which one heats up faster.
When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.
Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.
With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.
https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units.
Please don't pretend to know what you're talking about; you don't. These sites themselves state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- that's all you need to understand.
Being a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with specific heat capacity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of the property to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen do not have this property to the same degree -- i.e., they are much more transparent to IR.
(CO2 doesn't get any warmer in the process, by the way. So GW has nothing whatsoever to do with specific heat capacity.)
Sunlight absorbed at the surface of the Earth warms the surface, which radiates that heat back towards space. Oxygen and nitrogen are relatively much more transparent to infrared than carbon dioxide and methane. As concentrations of the latter increase, more of the infrared is reflected back to the surface instead of escaping to space.
Think about those extremely thin and light "space blankets" -- they have very little heat capacity, but keep you very warm through reflection of your body heat.
Greenhouse gases are gases that allow sunlight to pass through, but absorb infrared radiation (heat) emitted by the Earth back toward space. They do this because the molecules are only excited by radiation at very specific wavelengths (a consequence of quantum mechanics). In greenhouse gases, those wavelengths are mainly found in the infrared portion of the spectrum, rather than the visible or ultraviolet.
This behavior was demonstrated in laboratory measurements by physicist John Tyndall in 1859. Since then, it has been confirmed countless times by instruments that measure light spectra. It can even be demonstrated with nothing more than an infrared camera and a candle.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases its heat-trapping effect, warming the atmosphere. Humans are doing this today primarily by burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. But in the past, there have been other drivers of warming like the slow-changing cycles in Earth’s orbit that controlled the timing of the ice ages. That initial warming influence was amplified by releases of CO2 into the atmosphere1. Whatever the source, an addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will have the same effect: increasing temperatures by trapping more infrared radiation.
You know, maybe you wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you showed the slightest bit of humility on this issue -- an issue that has been studied for decades by climate scientists (people who have dedicated their lives to this specific issue). Given the wealth of information available on the topic, your ignorance is really inexcusable -- but that's not my problem with you -- my problem with you is your arrogance.
Do you ever ask yourself: "What is more likely: (1) that I have refuted/undermined the science of climate change because of something I found that everyone has overlooked, or (2) that maybe, because I'm not an expert, I am simply confused?"
Either you don't ask yourself this, or you do but you conclude that (1) is more likely -- in which case, you're not only ignorant, but suffer from delusions of grandeur. I cannot imagine an ego of such magnitude. How old are you? If you're 16 or 17, I can look the other way. Otherwise, good lord...
I'm following Smil and what seems plausible given the immense size and complexity of the fossil fueled energy infrastructure. I'm always open to counterarguments, of course, and in fact I would love to be wrong.
I'm only familiar with Smil in that I've seen some YouTube videos; I haven't read his books.
He's interesting, though, and I'd like to hear more about what he thinks some realistic solutions are. If you're more familiar, can you elaborate on a few? Otherwise it seems like he's saying it's hopeless. While that may be the case -- and there's no sense being a fool about things if it is -- there must be some things we can do to at least mitigate the absolute worst case scenarios.
It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions.
First, this has nothing to do with the fact humans have always had some impact on the planet. What a population of 300 million humans could do 2000 years ago is rather irrelevant compared to 8 billion now.
Second, we have no choice but to burn fossil fuels while making a transition. So that is another bad faith debating point here.
No one’s plan involves “just limiting carbon”. The issue is just to start limiting carbon and just to start making a transition.
Why would you be pushing things that aren’t in contention except to make it all seem a little more complicated and uncertain then it actually is?
Reply to Xtrix Smil mostly offers analyses that purport to show how things are and what is achievable. I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible. Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive. Our whole civilization is a gigantic. complex, interconnected and interdependent fossil fuel industry.
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. So Smil doesn't say it is hopeless and we should just continue business as usual, but he says that our strategies must be realistic or we will be walking blind into a worse catastrophe than we would have if we faced the hard reality. Of course the problem is political, not for the usual reasons it is said to be so, but because governments, and especially democratically elected governments, don't want to, for all the obvious reasons, confront their peoples with such hard truths.
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources.
Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.
Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.
The calculus quickly gets ugly.
I think you would be right assuming that most people cannot accept the personal sacrifices that would be necessary, in terms of reduction of energy and general consumption.
So it seems we will muddle on in light of the (ig)noble lies that sooth the anxieties of the masses, and line the pockets of the predators.
Reply to Janus This is actually not true. A majority of people are fine with making sacrifices if they apply to everyone and you can't just buy your way out (rich buying co2 credits, for instance). See: https://www.stefanie-stantcheva.com/research/
A lot of good stuff said here since I was here about a week ago(working man).
- uncertainties about the human part of the warming
- people’s will to make sacrifices for the sake of reducing warming. On a personal and governmental level.
- various links to for and against.
I feel tnere are too many hidden agendas in all these types of discussions.
The really toxic part is if some people want other people to make sacrifices that they do not see as sound. That really blocks all parts to common understandings.
I do not know, but suspect, that different habitats for upbringing can make people more or less apt to make changes.
And further, the climate discussions are not only questions of sacrificing or not. There are things like technology in the mix too. Eg Nuclear Power.
To philosohize is supposedly a very low emission producing activity. People should sit down and think instead of travelling all over the place… i find people rooting for the climate also loving travelling. Thats not so cool.
I think he would say there's no point telling people we should decarbonize quickly when it is not possible.
We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. There — fixed it. Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. He points out that 1.5 is arbitrary, that 2030 is artificial, that decarbonizing will be very hard, etc. Yeah, no kidding.
I’m curious as to why you’re drawn to his voice in particular?
Personally I think he gives cover to a lot of delay tactics, and echos a lot of stuff that can be read on the WSJ editorial page. That’s dangerous too. As much so as setting unrealistic goals.
Any strategy worth promoting should be viable,and if Smil is right, then touting the idea that the problem is merely political and that good solutions are mostly being disrupted by a recalcitrant fossil fuel industry is counterproductive.
You’ve said this several times now. Who’s saying the problem is “merely political”? Our leaders in government, who make crucial decisions about the future, are important — but that’s hardly the only problem.
Good solutions are indeed being disrupted by the fossil fuel industry, when it comes to legislation and government action. I don’t see any way to deny this. When it comes to individual consumer choices, innovation, cost, infrastructure, etc., those have their own obstacles. Sometimes it’s just NIMBYism, for example— hardly Big Oil’s fault.
A lot of this just reeks of strawmanning I’m afraid.
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources.
That’s one truth, yes. We should cut down on our energy use. But who’s “we”? Individual consumers? Yeah, that’s been a nice industry technique for 30 years: buy better lightbulbs, recycle, compost, turn off lights, etc. Passes on responsibility to individuals and ignores or minimizes those in power — the choices of industry and government.
If by “we” you mean our government — yeah, they have the ability to build public transportation, electrify thousands of USPS trucks and school buses, stop leasing federal land, regulating business, etc. Choices average individuals don’t make. I’d say that’s far more important — and what most people want, incidentally.
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. We all play a role, but law, private enterprise, and economic policy play a much bigger role. The case of public transit versus individual cars is a good example— most people want efficient public transit systems. Yet they’re encouraged — by choices made by real people — to purchase cars instead. And there’s no secret why that is.
So while Smil is interesting and generally correct, I don’t think there’s much that’s new there. Yes the problem is very hard, yes individual choices play a role, and yes we should have realistic goals and look at how reliant we are on fossil fuels with clear lenses. I don’t see being unrealistic as much of a problem, however — most people are probably more pessimistic than anything.
Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good.
Reply to Benkei I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices.
Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking.
I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours.
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak.
The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the government will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate.
Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good.
This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. The "masses" don't listen to Smil anyway. Anyway don't bother yourself about my perspective...carry on...
Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking.
— Xtrix
I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours.
I didn't say he wasn't knowledgable, or even that he was wrong -- and certainly not that he was bought. True, you're not saying that I said it -- but then why bring it up?
Anyway -- I don't doubt he's a good scientist and is a knowledgeable one -- he's interesting. I don't dismiss him. But I do think that his points -- at least some of the ones I menitoned -- are nitpicky, and run the risk of encouraging defeatism and the delay tactics of fossil fuel interests.
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak.
— Xtrix
The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the governement will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate.
Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?
This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier.
Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?
This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier.
Right, in a way I think government is the most important factor, since they make the policy decisions. But government, even one with the best will in the world, can be rendered impotent if what it proposes is unpalatable to the people. Here in Australia, the downfall of Kevin Rudd came about due to the perception that his proposed carbon tax would be seen as a "great big tax" (as the new opposition leader later framed it).
The liberal (conservative) party ousted their leader Malcolm Turnbull who had agreed to sign off on the tax. Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard, who shortly had to campaign for new elections, and she did so promising not to introduce a carbon tax. But because of not having enough seats to form government she capitulated to the greens, and went back on that promise. Of course next election she was voted out as Tony Abbott, the man the liberals replaced Malcolm Turnbull with, promised to repeal the "great big tax".
You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles,
What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about?
You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles,
That’s definitely an issue— and it should be minimized if possible — but the government does all kinds of things that cause pain. Look at what the Fed is doing now. It may not be popular, but if it’s considered necessary (as this is), they should go ahead with it. The lockdowns were another example.
Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.
What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about?
That’s a hard problem. I’ve seen some proposals— but first and foremost the US has to lead the way, along with other major emitters. They should also help developing countries develop sustainable practices.
Reply to Xtrix I don't find anything to disagree with in what you've written here. The only point I'd make is that when we are considering long-term austerity measures you can always get an opposition party coming along and saying they will remove them after being re-elected, which can rather disrupt the required long-term continuity of effective strategies.
Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.
which is pretty much what I have said governments should be telling people, but I believe won't for the reasons I've already given, would need to have bipartisan support.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 28, 2022 at 09:12#7338620 likes
Yes voluntary degrowth isn't going to happen, since politicians that would push that agenda wouldn't stay in power for very long. Case in point, Europe's current energy crisis. They'd rather turn to coal than accept they will have to do with less energy... And this from the continent that was arguably most willing to try and do something about the climate crisis.
Since voluntary degrowth is no option, we need to try to innovate and transition our way out of it. We especially need more Nuclear power plants, as fast as possible, to try and replace some of the energy we get from fossil fuels. It's the only carbon-free energy source that is reliable and energy-dense enough. Renewables can complement those, but can and should never have been the main replacement. They are simply not energy efficient enough, and you'll always have intermittency problems.
The alternative is involuntary degrowth, or collapse... and that would presumably be even worse since then one tends to turn to the more low-tech energy-sources, which also usually happen to be the most pollutant, like coal.
Anyway, in short, we need more nuclear power. It's safe, it's reliable, it's clean... only problem is, it has a bad rep. The alternatives are a hothouse earth, or a total collapse of industrial civilization.
I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices.
Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban.
Not really. Greenhouses basically work by keeping the same air in place and greatly reducing convection cooling. I think that's why the term' greenhouse effect' has lost favour. I think you can get special glass that does work like CO2, but it tends to go into high spec glazing for picky humans, and plants cannot afford it.
I thought I saw something ... maybe not.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 28, 2022 at 11:11#7338810 likes
They hardly mention any sacrifices that would have to be made to implement the policies, as that doesn't seem to be the subject of the study.
A ban on the combustion engine is hardly a sacrifice if it is understood that they can be replaced by electric engines, a transition that would probably have to be be subsidized by the state anyway.
Also, agreeing with investment for a green transition if they get the money for the investments from the rich is no sacrifice at all:
"Figure A6 shows the answers to the question about which sources of funding respondents would consider appropriate for public investments in green infrastructures. Respondents tend to agree that appropriate funding sources are higher taxes on the wealthiest and a carbon tax. They are much less likely to agree with additional public debt, reductions in social spending, reductions in military spending, or increases in the sales taxes as appropriate sources of funding."
Loosely translated, they would agree to more green investments if it doesn't cost them anything.
Anyway, talk is cheap, across Europe governments are falling over eachothers feet now to reduce energy-prices for the public, which is the opposite of what a green policy should look like because it incentivizes energy-consumption which leads to more emissions.
Reply to ssuReply to ChatteringMonkey The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair. People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. I was mentioning the specific ban because it suggests Janus hasn't read any of the papers I linked, I wasn't arguing the effectivity of that specific policy.
And yes, CM, people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 28, 2022 at 12:00#7338910 likes
The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair..
Sure, but that's part of the problem, no? If we wait to do something about climate change until we a have policies that impact everybody equally, we might have to wait until it's to late. The rich are rather good at avoiding taxes and social responsibilities. And then across countries you also have the tragedy of the commons/prisoners dilemma, in that in a world of competing countries you don't want to be the first to make sacrifices that makes you weaker competitively.
people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes.
There's a huge difference on what kind of subsidy one wants for a negative outcome than with the tax one would pay for there be no negative outcome.
Far better is to give incentives for the industry and for the needed infrastructure to be created for electric cars (starting with having that electricity demand met without new or existing coal plants).
Furthermore, just notice that actually older cars don't run on present day fuel sold in gas stations. So the timeline basically for cars to transform happens in many decades.
Far too many times policies are done that sound good, people think our needed, but simply don't have any trace of reality in them. As if they really would want to face an economic recession, blackouts and lower standard of living than before. Just as one historical example: after the Three Mile Island incident, Sweden decided after a referendum in 1980 to go away from nuclear energy. The Parliament decided that nuclear energy production would be phased out by 2010, hence in thirty years. In 2010, Sweden was producing far more nuclear energy, both in power and percentage wise, than in 1980.
Nearly one third of electricity in Sweden is produced by nuclear energy in Sweden today, 42 years after that decision.
So one can basically fuck off with 90% of the bullshit energy policy initiatives which sound good to people, won't happen and will be forgotten when the next administration comes in. And that's why basically many countries don't have a real energy policy. It's all just nice words far from the actual reality.
Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban.
I don't have time to read things others reference. If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. The fact that the researchers might be proposing banning combustion engines (all combustion engines or just some, and over what time frame?) does not equate to acceptance of the idea by the general populace, and nor does it equate to the proposal being actually viable.
Reply to Janus Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. The point I made was in the initial post and based on the linked science. Since you haven't read it, you'll accept it as gospel truth then. Great!
Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it.
I never pretended to have read the linked research; if you thought that it was entirely your own imagining. But wait, you didn't think I had read it anyway:
Don't pretend that I have blamed you for my not having read it, either. I don't blame you for anything other than expecting me to read it, rather than taking the trouble yourself to quote the relevant part(s).
Reply to Janus Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. Of course anyone normal would assume you had read it. So I have you the benefit of the doubt and asked, because the answer was peculiar if you had. I didn't assume a thing at that point.
If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper.
This is blame. I'm to follow your unpublished rules of engagement and I'm not allowed to expect you to read something that denies your claims. Silly me. Here I thought you'd be happily surprised people are willing to make sacrifices and you'd actually be interested. Guess that resolves that mystery: your opinion is more dear to you than actual facts. Nice.
Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research.
It was not a "blanket denial of the research" but an expression of doubt that the research could be relevant to the point I made that most people don't wish to have their accustomed lifestyles disrupted, and will vote against any proposal to do so. Can you imagine what people would say to a government that told them they must dispose of their SUV and buy a tiny car instead, or stop traveling by air, or actually stop traveling unless on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, because it is a privilege the poor in third world countries don't enjoy?
I can! That's an intuition of mine to be sure, but I think it's accurate, and I know without reading it that no research could prove that wrong, even if they surveyed everyone, because what people say they will agree to and what they actually will agree to, when it comes to the crunch, can be two very different things, as I already suggested. I actually don't believe the majority of people would even say they would agree to such measures, let alone actually agree to them.
The temperature in this thread is shooting up rapidly! Must be global warming! :snicker:
unenlightenedAugust 29, 2022 at 09:54#7341900 likes
[quote=God]Most people do the best they can for themselves within the rules they live under from time to time.[/quote]
This means, for example, that they will struggle to build their wooden huts on stilts above the flood water in Pakistan, until the flood that washes it all away, and then they will drown. If the government tells them to stay at home for 3 months, or wear a mask, or wear a burkha they will do so, and try to live with that. So there is no problem in banning private transport powered by fossil fuels, and no problem introducing rationing, or enforcing house sharing, or any other necessary measure.
This summer has made it even more obvious that we’re heading for disaster— and that much of it is already locked in from the last 30 years of inaction.
At about 1.5°C some tipping points may be reached, including for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, accelerated thawing of boreal permafrost, and die-off of tropical coral reefs. But the authors “cannot rule out” that ice-sheet tipping points have already been passed and that some other tipping elements have minimum thresholds in range of 1.1°C to 1.5°C of warming.
Greta Thunberg says it would be "a mistake" for Germany to switch off its nuclear power plants if that means the country must burn more climate-wrecking coal.
The German government is still debating the future of its nuclear plants, long set to be shut down this year, given the spectre of a looming energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine.
The climate activist told German public broadcaster ARD that it was “a very bad idea to focus on coal when this [nuclear power] is already in place.”
But she acknowledged in the interview, aired today, that there was a strong debate over the issue in Germany.
Asked whether it would be better for the planet if Germany keeps its three remaining nuclear plants going, Thunberg responded: “If we have them already running, I feel that it’s a mistake to close them down in order to focus on coal.”
Pressed by programme host Sandra Maischberger on whether she thought the nuclear plants should be closed down as soon as possible after the current energy crunch passes, Thunberg said “it depends. We don’t know what will happen after this."
The 19-year-old's comments come as Germany's three-party governing coalition argues over the possibility of suspending the country's nuclear phaseout.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 12, 2022 at 21:09#7478220 likes
What is there to debate?
They should be building nuclear plants en masse non stop.
[i]"The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C.
Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.
The report finds that only an urgent system-wide transformation can deliver the enormous cuts needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2030: 45 per cent compared with projections based on policies currently in place to get on track to 1.5°C and 30 per cent for 2°C."[/i]
Urgent system-wide transformation is unlikely. Enormous investments are needed for that world-wide, and with things getting progressively worse geopolitically, economically and also energy-security wise, investments that only re-pay themselves in the long term seem to be getting more difficult as we get deeper into it. Saying only urgent system-wide transformation would do it, is essentially the same as saying we won't make those targets.
October 30th— tomorrow — will largely determine the fate of life as we know it. Why? Because the Brazilian people vote for a president tomorrow, and the fate of the planet’s lungs — the Amazon — will be decided with it. This isn’t hyperbole.
Fingers crossed that people don’t opt for suicide.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 29, 2022 at 18:08#7524520 likes
I don't think one particular thing or event will move the needle all that much. Sure it would be bad, but so are a lot of things, not in the least the fact that we have that much greenhouse gasses in the air already, which means a certain amount of rise in temperature is already locked in for the next 30 years or so.
More than certain political parties winning in this or that country, the issue we have and have had for the past 30 years is mostly global and systemic. This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons. Fossil fuels is power (and not that easy to replace contrary to somewhat popular opinion), and countries are locked in geopolitical struggle always... which means those that would stop using carbon fuels first loose out, and so they don't.
The only possible way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is the main geopolitical powers, the US and China, both unilaterally or maybe in a bilateral agreement, deciding to phase out fossil fuels in a short timeframe and forcing the rest of the world to follow. So maybe it could be about national politics after all, but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much.
If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
Will we actually turn ourselves into Venus?
I think we will reach certain tipping points at this stage simply from inactivity and favouring observing the effects of climate as proof that it exists, rather than to acting against them without evidence. But the evidence in daily life is growing and those that said it was deniable are finding it harder and harder to justify their denial these days.
Having said that we are extremely resourceful and clever when we need to be. And we are able to adapt very well. So now that climate change is really making itself known through observation I think more and more people are getting on board with the idea that it is a true and inevitable problem.
Now that we are becoming ever more united against climate change we can adapt to those tipping points that have already past and make plans to circumvent those that have not already occurred.
This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons
On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.
It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference.
You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide.
The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves?
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 29, 2022 at 19:45#7524690 likes
On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.
It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference.
No. Reason and rhetoric are not the same. People are hardly, if ever, convinced by reason.
You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide.
Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want. But I wasn't talking about people, but about nations... people don't matter all that much in this case.
The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves?
Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true?
Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want
Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying.
Also suppose you hold a gun to someone's head and try to make them do what you want. And they refuse. Your only choice is what... Have your bluffed called and you drop the weapon or you pull the trigger. Would you really make a murderer out of yourself just because someone resoundingly disagreed with what you wanted?
Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true?
No not myself some advantage. Surprisingly, not everything someone does is in self interest. Sometimes we see an issue that isn't our problem and doesn't affect us but we go out and try to solve it for others to make their lives better. We do it because we can. And because its what we think is right.
Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 30, 2022 at 12:03#7526000 likes
Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying.
You can, but you shouldn't, sure, I can agree with that. Anyway, we going on a bit of a tangent here. My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really.
The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market.
This is a simple idea really. You need energy for almost everything you produce. If energy-costs go up in one country (like it is the case now in Europe) prices go up and sales go down because we have a globalised market... and so companies fail or relocate to a place where costs are lower. At the end of this process political parties in power in that democratic country will lose because people don't like being unemployed and prices going up... so they get replaced by another political party that promises to get back the countries competitive edge. Doing the right thing doesn't get you elected just because it's the right thing.
Edit: And by 'forcing' I don't necessarily mean military force, although that could be part of it, but in the first place setting trade standards with the rest of the world so that carbon fueled goods cannot be sold.
Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation.
This is an empirical question ultimately, and I think you are just wrong on this. Google and facebook know, their algorithms figured out long ago that what interest people is not measured and balanced, or even true, but rather what is polarising, extreme, and evoking strong emotions.
My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really.
Nations- being the sum of individuals, have nothing to do with morals? So a nation can act however it pleases against another nation with no consideration for ethics? Please.
Russian is at war with Ukraine at this very moment.
As a nation it is not moral to go to war with another and cause thousands of deaths, pain and suffering.
That isn't to say that every Russian is at fault. Many Russians disagree with the war and want nothing to do with it. It is the government (democratic or tyrannical) which is responsible for the morality of international relations with another country.
In a dictatorship the action of a nation towards another is the whim of one person. In a healthy democracy the action of a nation towards another reflects the conscience and values of each individual - as their vote did contribute to what pathways are allowed or disallowed by leaders.
National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. But sadly in some governments it only reflects the morality of a few - in the interests of individual good rather than the greater good.
The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market.
Agreed in the sense that the largest powers should be the ones to set an example. Disagree that they are the only nations that can. Of course they're not.
With current competition and the heftier cost of renewables the ideal way to change is unanimously and simultaneously with one another as a collective of nations so that no individual nation suffers market disadvantage.
But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way.
Granted some have had a natural geographical advantage (Iceland for example). So the switch to renewables is really more crucial an argument between countries which produce the most fossil fuels and not those that have readily available renewable alternatives.
It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil).
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 30, 2022 at 14:37#7526230 likes
But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way.
No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.
And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world.
It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil).
It's to be expected, we have been externalising environmental costs and other costs that don't directly impact us for the entirety of our history (maybe there were some exceptions, but they didn't make it in any case). It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part.
National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality.
They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem.
No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.
And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world.
You highlight some valid particularities here. I will reconsider my approach based on that info I didn't know previously. Yes maybe they aren't really representing the world at large
They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem
It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.
People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.
What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve?
It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.
People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.
What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve?
What if there is no good solution? Not every problem has a solution.
But ok, raising awareness and moral outrage generally does matter and can help in solving a problem, I'll meet you halfway on that. The issue here I think is that people don't like the solution, not that they are not aware of the problem. At some point (after 30 years or so) you got to think things like climate denial or minimizing of the consequences of climate change is not a matter of people not being informed, but a matter of people not wanting to know... because they don't like what it entails. And so they back-create a story that saves them from cognitive dissonance.
There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas.
None of the energy sources that could replace them quite have the same set of properties, and all have their various problems. Wind and solar for instance are only intermittent, actually not that cheap when you'd build them outside of a fossil fueled economy, are also an environmental liability if you scale them up and we'd probably run out rare earth materials if you'd try it as a main energy source world wide.
Nuclear and deep geothermal, if we could solve the issues with drilling, are probably our best bet as a replacement on a large enough scale, but those also do require time to build and/or develop... and we are running out of time as we speak. But that would be a start of a solution, the US and Chinese government (and Europe too) throwing huge amounts of money at research and development, and at building those. Once you have enough carbon-free energy you could power carbon capture technologies and EV's and/or hydrogen-production for things like transport.
And then these rich developed countries would need to enforce carbon-free trade and actively help the rest of the world with their energy-transition, which is probably a big ask with geo-political tensions as they are.
Anyway, needless to say these are huge transformations which require a lot of time and focussed effort.... in a messy world. It's not that it is theoretically impossible, but it's still very difficult and at the end of the day people typically can't be bothered that much with a problem that will have it's full impact only decades into the future.
Climate scientists are unequivocal: time is running out to transition away from fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal and instead power our cars, heat our homes and grow our food using renewable energy sources and sustainable farming practices. Most voters agree: two thirds of Americans want the federal government to do more to tackle the climate crisis, according to one recent poll.
Despite this urgency, the climate crisis has not been a campaigning focal point for Democrats or Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections, with inflation, abortion and immigration gaining far more attention from candidates. Worryingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who are forecast to lose control of both Houses, 60% of voters know nothing or little about the historical climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act) passed this summer. And 139 fossil fuel friendly members of the current (117th) Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change, accounting for more than half of Republicans.
https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg
unenlightenedNovember 06, 2022 at 09:54#7543140 likes
There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas.
The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.
Perfect use of the term cancerous imo.
A healthy cell recognises that it can't have it all without being a cancer to the others, and ironically ignoring those natural laws to its existence (the immune system) will end in ultimately killing its host. And nobody is a winner in that case.
I think our current global capitalist regime has elements of this toxic or "cancerous" insistance that economy can grow indefinitely in a finite space (the earth - our organism).
I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.
She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours.
ChatteringMonkeyNovember 06, 2022 at 15:57#7543930 likes
The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.
Endless growth is cancerous.
I agree unenlightened, at least in principle, I have no particular love for current society based on economic growth. If we were to turn back time a couple of centuries, i'd say let's not start on this particular track.
Problem is that I think we kindof trapped ourselves at this point. Fossil fuels and technologies build on them enabled us to soar high above what is sustainable.
If we were to cut all of that back however I think we would have some serious problems, because we are with that many, because the whole global economy is so integrated, because a certain amount of climate warming and ecosystems collapse is already locked in for the next century even if we would stop right away etc etc...
All of that means we cannot merely stop what we are doing I think. We need an exit strategy that ideally doesn't involve total collapse of our systems (and lots of people dying), a strategy that people could get behind politically also, and at the same time it would need to get us to some place in the future that is sustainable and gives us some perspective going forward.
People will focus on some small subset of the problem, point fingers, play the blame game, come up with simplistic solutions... or on the opposite side people will deny the problem altogether or at least the severity of the consequences of the problem. I see very few actually trying to integrate multiple aspects of the problem in a coherent solution, maybe because it is very difficult... lets at least acknowledge that much.
ChatteringMonkeyNovember 06, 2022 at 16:23#7543990 likes
I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.
She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours.
Mother nature is a bitch, because she never told us the rules, but she will still enforce them just the same.... And the only house rule is, if you go to far, you die.
Any biological organism is looking for surplus energy to propagate it's particular form. That is what is selected for in evolutionary terms. Did we really have a choice to leave free energy in the ground collectively?
Typically, competition among organisms is fierce and adaptive enough so that no single one can take the upper hand for long. We broke genetic evolution however with our ability for cultural evolution. While the rest of the natural world is stuck evolving claws and teeth over millennia, we can create a gun in a couple of centuries.
Unfortunately, our success is also our downfall... yeast. We did everything right to succeed in your game and now you punish us for it, thanks a lot mother nature!
L'éléphantNovember 06, 2022 at 16:54#7544040 likes
With the ease at how we can now buy goods online, there's exponential increase in packaging (layers of materials and big boxes disproportionate in size to the goods we buy), production of goods (mostly non-essentials), trucks delivery (fuel, exhaust, traffic, and of course vehicle maintenance), warehouses to house these good, and of course, landfill wastes.
For those not deluded by economists’ models and the “It’s a problem but nothing to panic about” attitude of the intellectual giants we find on Internet forums, I suggest reading several sources — written by climate scientists. You’ll get the facts, and decide for yourself whether “alarm” is warranted.
Spoiler alert: it definitely, definitely is. We’re not panicked enough, in fact.
I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking
His statements are in line with the mainstream view. There's a delayed effect with CO2 emissions. Some of the warming from the CO2 put out in the 22nd Century won't be felt till later.
The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic.
I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking.
You’d be right to. McKitrick is a moron. Not only does he misrepresent the IPCC, notice that he also quotes from the 2013 report. Can’t even take the time to misrepresent the latest version.
Economic models are — and have been shown to be— complete garbage on this matter.
Again— We can listen to the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, and feel great because we have “special knowledge” and are so very much “outside the mainstream” (thus conveniently relieved of actually learning about the subject), and then proudly proclaim it’s “No big deal”— or we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words.
Climate denial is much easier. Just “weather volatility,” after all. So we can rest our little heads about it.
. . . . climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words
Probably better not to use this archaic word. When I studied climatology at the U of Chi eons ago it was the post-graduate basket-weaving course in meteorology, in contrast to atmospheric science and fluid dynamics which were much more rigorous. These days more legitimate scientists are involved in climate science.
Some oldtimers (conservative Repubs?) still think of "climatology" the way it used to be - not very good at specifics and mostly just descriptive.
Being alarmed is the modern equivalent of buying an indulgence.
Agent SmithDecember 10, 2022 at 12:17#7625050 likes
Climate change. What's the latest? COP26 was a hot topic around 6 moons ago ... the fire fizzled out in a about a week. If climate change is true and going by how much good quality data is available saying that it is, I'd say something really weird is going on.
The amount of ignorance on this very forum about climate change is itself evidence that we should ignore 90% of what’s written on “philosophical” matters.
If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.
unenlightenedDecember 10, 2022 at 18:10#7625700 likes
If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.
What else do you have planned before myopia extinguishes our species? It is rather sad, certainly that even amongst these intelligent friends, it is a struggle all the day long just to establish that there is something to be concerned about. Of course in relation to recent posts, one has to understand that Canada is one place that might become more hospitable to human life with Global warming. And that is the myopia once again, as if all the migrants from the tropics, the floodplains, the expanding deserts and ecological disaster zones won't be bothering all the nice Canadians at all.
I used to be interested in Ecosophy back in the day, but those were the days when philosophy departments in Universities were being defunded because they could not show the value of their product. Well you get what you pay for, I suppose. You pay peanuts, you get snake oil.
Anyway, the problem remains that even now, the only appeal that anyone can even understand is to naked self-interest. "Hey, we're all going to die. " Perhaps you and I are the stupid apes that cannot see that that must be a good thing for the poor planet, and the sooner the better.
The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. Also, you might wanna review the claim scientifically. In other words, climate scientists havta get their act together. Sorry if this offends you, not really my style. It's 11[sup]th[/sup]December and where I am, it's unusually warm this year. :chin:
The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem.
Come on now. If climate change isn’t watertight, what is?
The problem isn’t that it isn’t watertight, it’s that there has been a deliberate push to confuse and delay. Frontline had a 3-part series on this a few months back — worth checking out. It’s about big oil but Exxon especially.
Look no further for why it’s controversial. Anything factual becomes controversial if it threatens powerful interests. That’s been true since Galileo, at least.
I see. Exploring science is going to go a long way towards settling the matter; if not, it'll explain the situation we're in. Gracias for the clarification.
The steel mill that looms over low-slung neighborhoods in Pueblo, Colorado, is a rare bright spot for American manufacturing. Once part of the state’s largest private employer, pumping out steel that was used to build rail lines across the Western US, it is now in the midst of a major expansion and recently became the world’s first steel plant to run almost entirely on solar power.
As we gain in wind and solar, we lose in our most dependable source, hydroelectric power, as Lake Mead and Lake Powell continue to dry up. Almost all of Switzerland's energy comes through hydroelectric, and the government is telling its citizens to cut back on the use of their EVs.
javi2541997January 01, 2023 at 10:59#7682220 likes
Reply to Mikie No snow in the Alps. Watch what that will do to the Rhine come spring and summer. This is fucking up groundwater levels because we're the goddamn stars in making water run the fuck off to the sea instead of living in the bog that was the river delta of the Maas, Waal and Rhine. Only way to save that is creating bogs again but oops it's built up to capacity (actually over if we take environmental measures).
But hey, at least I can have a beer on a terrace during winter!
I fear trying to correct a climate trajectory is a bit of a joke unless all on Earth work together diligently, taking away the comforts of civilized society. Not likely.
Sell your beachfront property while you can. I understand prices are going up in some places. Go figure.
Reply to Manuel I can't think of anyone who thought that getting temperatures below 1.5 C would be achieved, given how sluggish progress has been. Sad but not surprising.
Very soon, yes. A bit later, Florida isn't going to be livable, barring a gigantic infrastructure change not seen since the Southern part of Florida was built.
Reply to Manuel Sadly things being worse than expected is becoming an incresingly common phrase among alot of climate headlines today so I've learned to factor that into my predictions as well.
Yes, that's rather sensible, however bad it seems now, very soon, it's going to be significantly worse than predicted, because every new study is confirming this, including this one by McKibben:
While I share everyone's concern and have a feeling that things are indeed worse than expected, that Aljazeera headline is misleading if that's all you read. The article goes on to note:
But that did not necessarily mean the world would cross the long-term warming threshold of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
"Breaching 1.5C threshold" in a single year is meaningless, because there is no such threshold. Single-year averages can deviate widely from the long-term trend, and in an El Nino year that's expected.
Not meaningless, it signals that we are going above predicted deviations.
It may not formally lead to the conclusion that we already have exceeded the 2030 deadline goals, but it's certainly a statement announcing that this is likely to happen.
The McKibben article should also cause concern. It's hotter than predicted in addition to having El Nino, so that's worse.
I can see it clearly here where I live, the Dominican Republic, the amounts of seaweed we are getting from the bottom of the ocean off the coasts of Africa is insane, causing as much as an 80% drop in tourism, depleting oxygen and harming peoples health.
Yes, and we can't predict, a-priori, how bad it will be on top of the already burning ocean, so it's a kind of Russian roulette.
There's no reason to believe climate change will cause human extinction. Primates originally evolved at the poles during the PETM. The surface was hotter then than it will be during the whole AGW episode.
But one thing I've found: the belief that we're facing the end is very strong. I think those who hold that belief are doing so for a reason I don't totally understand.
Not the end of the species, but the end of organized human societies yes. It's an important distinction.
People won't be able to live in Florida or Saudi Arabia, water scarcity is and will become massive issues, lots of migration, etc.
We won't all die, but it won't resemble much what we have now, relatively safe cities, food readily available, being able to go outside for too long in certain areas, etc.
So it is pretty bad, though not literally the end.
We'll have to hope for a tech miracle. People just aren't willing to make the sacrifices needed to solve the problem, or even stop it from getting worse.
There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, not just social breakdown. Tipping points could be breached, leading to hothouse earth scenarios. But beyond that, in combination with other threats we face, including nuclear war, it’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight.
It’s simply time to tune out anyone who says things won’t be so bad— aka the Bjorn Lomburg school of denial. It’s the same crowd that feels, by some kind of compulsion, to point out that a few human beings may survive a global nuclear war — hence making it technically not “existential.”
True, societal collapse is bad enough. Whether climate change “alone” could cause extinction, I’m not sure what that means. Nuclear war “alone” may not wipe out human beings either.
There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, which is underreported and commonly downplayed so as not to appear “alarmist,” but it’s certainly possible. But apart from that, consider the related biodiversity collapse or threats to agriculture or consistent superstorms.
Anyway, the point stands: when you encounter people whose first reaction to the evidence of climate change is to compulsively say “It won’t wipe us out,” just ignore them. They’re irrelevant.
Listen to experts who study extinctions:
[quote=Luke Kemp] If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt. [/quote]
Or we can say “Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” But I prefer not to do that.
Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!”
I didn't say everything will be fine. I compared the coming event to the end of the Bronze Age. The only social collapse that compares to that is the fall of Rome.
If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt.
— Luke Kemp
What it means is that, out of 8 billion or so people in the world, several could survive, maybe millions, or more, or less, who knows.
Nuclear War would be worse, given the radiation and the sheer force, so it's unlikely more of them would live than given extremely dire climate change scenarios, but we are splitting hairs, in terms of the amount of people who may survive or not.
It's not about being alarmist or not alarmist, it's pretty darn bad, which is why the links I provided, contribute to such damning conclusions, that we are in very deep shit.
You react to people as you think you should, I'll do likewise.
Not meaningless, it signals that we are going above predicted deviations.
What predictions are you talking about? Climatologists don't make predictions for individual years.
Eight of the past ten years were the warmest on record, and a similar trend held in preceding decades. That is meaningful. But a single-year record does not mean much on its own, and comparing it with a long-term average prediction is just ignorant.
This article is an old one, but predictions have not changed all that much for the more optimistic since.
Rather than argue back and forth about whether humans will go extinct or merely become an endangered species, let's have a bit of a think about the loss of major cities, and arable land that result from a sea level rise of 20ft (6m.)
Two to three feet of sea level rise may not sound like much, but it will transform human societies the world over. In south Florida, where I live, residents will lose access to fresh water. Sewage treatment plants will fail, large areas will persistently flood, and Miami Beach and other barrier islands will be largely abandoned. In China, India, Egypt and other countries with major river deltas, two to three feet of sea level rise will force the evacuation of tens of millions of people and the loss of vast agricultural lands.
This by 2050. If I was a mortgage company, I would be stopping lending in low lying coastal towns.
And of course it's not going to stop at 3ft, nor at 6m.
Argue if you like about whether to call it sea level change, or sea level emergency, extinction or population reduction. Call me an alarmist, though; I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks.
I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks.
I appreciate and honor that. I'm not alarmed. I'm just kind of heartbroken. I think the most actionable path would be fusion r+d. As the article @jgill posted said, a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing.
a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing.
Indeed, and everyone is rowing back even on the pointless gestures. Had to laugh at the UK leading the way on carbon reduction by tanking the economy. Half the country is dependent on food hand outs and cannot afford to cook or heat their homes. Quite the achievement! Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us.
Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us.
I think Bangladesh will be gone soon. Similarly, the east coast of North America is going under. We wait till the hurricanes destroy the coast before we finally give up, though.
One thing that's hard for the leftist in me to swallow is that one of the parties contributing to a real solution is a megastar of capitalism: Bill Gates. See here.
He has the same autonomy to act that the Chinese government does. Both of them are actually addressing the problem while western governments do nothing but posture (or close to nothing.)
Reply to Varnaj42 If this was an attempt a adolescent humor, it failed.
No, it IS CO2, methane, CFCs, and other gases. Greed has been a feature of human beings from the get go, but global warming has been a problem for a little over a century. It's industrialization and population growth. The world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927; it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. In the last 60 years, we've added 5 billion+, all using various pieces of the first and second industrial revolutions (which have depended heavily on fossil fuels, for which there are no great substitute).
It isn't human greed that's preventing us from dramatically and radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are no great substitutes for fossil fuels (no easily portable energy dense substances without serious manufacturing or toxicity problems). It's difficult to get 8 people to agree on what to order for lunch, never mind getting 8 billion people to act on climate change in a coordinated fashion.
We are making some, limited progress. I very much doubt whether we will succeed in avoiding disaster, but we are, sort of, trying. What are you doing to help?
Reply to Varnaj42 No. It's cow belching due to enteric fermentation - which is the digestive process of converting sugars into simple molecules for absorption into the bloodstream, which produces methane as a by-product. My source is NASA global climate change :wink:
Reply to BC No. Let's just say that it's a jab at those who believe that we humans are to blame for climate change. We are not. We are recent arrivals on this planet. Climate change predates us by a very long time. I am aware of the vast numbers of college boys and girls (there are but two genders) who think otherwise. What are they to think when, after all, they get the idea thrown at them all the time by people who thrive on sensationalism.
If you can't take a little heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Reply to Mikie I, and most others who argue about climate change are mis-understood. Sure... it's real. It's happening. We just don't happen to think it is the fault of human beings. The climate is always in a state of change and has been since it first appeared on this planet.
There is a lot of emotional satisfaction in the idea of having something to blame. This is where we humans are so foolish.
Here's a little factoid for the Greta fans who might be reading. When a large composite volcano pops it's cork such as the one at Krakatoa. More greenhouse gasses are released in that event than all produced inthe entirety ot human activities on this planet.
Here's another interesting tidbit. Someone please tell me why the climate change advocates set their sights on western countries where white people are with their complaints while steadfastly ignoring the oriental offenders? North Korea might well have the foulest air on the planet but the greenies never mention them. China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not?
You see? It's political.
When I read about American college kids complaining about the pollution generated by China and North Korea I'll change my tune. Until them I am convinced it's all no more than anti-white posturing.
But... thanks for moving my thread. I didn't even know about the other location.
Reply to Varnaj42 1. Largest consumers are western countries and therefore cause the most pollution and that includes the pollution in other countries that produce to meet western demand. 2. i can't influence Chinese policy but I can influence national policy.
So yes, it's political because it makes sense. I'll ignore the racist canard of this being anti-white as being off topic and a rabbit hole I don't want to continue in.
As to "climate change has always happened", well, duh. Nobody ever claimed otherwise but it is clearly man made now as the speed at which it's changing globally is unprecedented. https://xkcd.com/1732/
The climate is always in a state of change and has been since it first appeared on this planet.
Yes, you are right -- climate is always in a state of change. We have all sorts of evidence to support that idea. Nobody (in their right mind) denies this. However, nobody in their right mind thinks the current, very rapid climate change is normal.
China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not?
Au contraire! China is very much recognized as the largest current contributor of CO2 from coal fired power plants and auto emissions. China has an all-round atrocious record of air and water pollution. On the other hand, they are also building out very large wind and solar systems. No industrial country--not the US, not the EU, not China, not anybody else--can convert from coal to solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro energy without expending huge amounts of energy constructing the new systems. Coal, oil, and gas have to be used in the interim for steel, cement, aluminum, glass, mining, and other heavy industrial processes.
The big CATCH 22 for us is that a lot of CO2 will be produced solving the CO2 problem. That's one reason why our situation is bleak.
Take electric cars for example. There are about 1 billion internal combustion automobiles on the roads around the world. They produce lot of CO2. "Oh, but once we are all driving electric cars, that won't be a problem any more. Electricity will be green." Hang on. How will we produce 1 billion electric cars without generating a lot of Co2? How will we mine, refine, and transport millions of tons of raw material for all these new cars without generating CO2? Who thinks we can have millions (billions) of solar panels and a few million windmills without heavy manufacturing in the near future?
The answer is that we will keep producing more CO2 for the foreseeable future as we attempt to change our economies from the bottom up.
Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology. That would result in a very fast drop in the emissions of all green house gasses. Such a move would also involve the world's economies hitting a very thick brick wall at 80 mph. The only thing that would be as disruptive is probably a nuclear war or a world wide epidemic of the Black Plague without antibiotics.
Reply to WayfarerReply to Wayfarer Yes well the problem is that people seldom agree on which facts are correct. We all know that a good wordsmith can craft a fact to fit a desire. Can a bunch of liberals and a bunch of conservatives get together and find some kind of agreement about the true causes of climate change? It'd be nice if that could happen. But for each side to simply sling their opinions or which facts are real back and forth accomplishes nothing.
First we have to agree, really agree, not that climate change exists because it does.. we have to agree about the causes. Until this happens I choose to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity.
One scientific school has declared that the cycles of the sun as combined with those of the Earth's rotational and orbital eccentricities are to blame. Are there any liberals willing to take a serious look at this? Be nice if their were.
Thanks for the comment... It's funny. We are living in a threat of global communism and we can't find anything better to do than to argue about climate change.
We are living in a threat of global communism and we can't find anything better to do than to argue about climate change.
Yes so perhaps you can find something more constructive to say rather than waste further time denying the science.
The science is very clear - increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, plainly correlated to emissions caused by human activities, are unmistakeably linked to increasing global temperatures. It is very clear and simple. There might be scientists who want to dispute that, but scientists were employed by the tobacco industry to cast doubt over the link to lung cancer (see Merchants of Doubt). It's the same kind of scenario with climate-change denial, there are many vested interests who want to deny it.
Reply to BC OK so since China is making wind farms and solar panels they can be forgiven for all their polluting activities?
I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. My opinion is that all this hype is just another game being played by the big boys with all the money.
Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. It's OK to discuss them but it's not OK to run around like chickens with no heads going berserk over who to blame. This is not the road that mature human beings would waste their time with. It is the lower road taken by the emotional masses who believe whatever they're told to believe.
With proper leadership our country can overcome anything. Right now we have bad leadership. This is the reason there is so much social strife. When Trump returns to the Oval office the buck will stop at his desk. He will actually do something. How refreshing that will be.
Reply to Manuel Decades ago I read about the traditional wine growing regions of Europe moving northward because of slowly changing seasonal variations. Then we found that fine wines were being produced in England. This is a part of climate change??? Probably.
If our world heats up just a bit more then the northern lands will be available for agriculture. They haven't been since the crustal shift of 12,000 years ago. This will be a renewal. Kind of like crop rotation. Or the farming practice of letting a field go to nature for a couple of seasons so that it can be renewed through natural growth and animal life.
It's true that if the sea levels rise there will be major populations migrating. But more will now be able to live comfortably in the far north. And the northern, Arctic seas will be free of ice and navigable for a change.
Humanity will find a way to deal with it. My major complaint and the thing that we conservatives fight against is the threat of living in authoritarian societies as a result of it. Those are never good.
But why am I worried. I remember the hype over Y2K. The world was going to end because computers would crash. Yeah sure!!! All the same voices that were yelling about that supposed event are now at it again over climate change. Meanwhile real, thinking people, sit quietly knowing that the fires of beserkness will eventually burn low.
In my next lifetime I will be born to the Martian colony. There, we will survive by cooperating, not arguing. How nice it will be.
Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.
Reply to Wayfarer You liberals would be lost without the word "deny" to throw at people. I do not "deny" science at all. I simply disagree as do many others about conclusions made. And the reason is simple... Whenever human beings are involved there are always differing opinions. If you know anything about science you will know that scientists seldom agree on anything.
No. I suggest to you that just because you say it's settled does not mean it is. So easy to toss out a slogan and then sit back with arms folded. Sorry. The science of climate change causes is still far from being settled regardless of the claims that you make.
In any case does it matter if you and I don't agree? Not in the slightest.
Meanwhile I do my bit. I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home. I also designed and built a large solar water heater on a platform. I use it to pre-heat water as it enters the electric water heater. This was my own idea. It works great and my electric bill is down by more than $80 a month even in the winter. I have more than 65 years of experience in the broad area of electrical engineering field. I haven't time for brain dead college professors who rant and rave over things they know nothing about.
I don't need scientists to lead the way. This is another thing that we conservatives are good at.
We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children.
The trouble with the climate change debate is not any science besides social science. Human beings, like animals, form tribes. In each tribe a set of conditions exist. People gravitate to one or another based on how they feel and what they believe.
Look at our congress. Tribes!!!! Each side swearing they are correct and the other are wrong. What science, I ask, can make this emotional non-thinking go away?
In climate change it's the same way. Each side claims to have the science on their side. Even the most careless application of logic will show that this can't be correct. But instead of working together to resolve the issues we fight, fight, fight... calling out the other side. You're an idiot. He or she is an idiot. No. You people are climate deniers.
We humans deserve exactly what we now have and that is our fault. All of us are to blame.
I'm in my eighties now. I won't have to be here much longer to see the world go to hell in a hand basket just because emotionalism modifies science.
Pot meet kettle. The only one "modifying" clear science here is you. You say you disagree with the conclusion we're in a man-made climate crisis but I've not seen you waylay even one claim of, for instance, the IPCC let alone rebut the overall argument. It's only "it's political". Well, no shit Sherlock, mass mobilisation is effectively done through politics.
We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children.
Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.
Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.
Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.
I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home
You say three things here:
1. Climate change poses no threats to humanity.
2. Climate change occurs as part of a natural process.
3. Even if #2 is false and humans cause climate change, you're doing what you can to stem it by choosing non carbon based sources of energy.
My questions:
1. If climate change poses no threats, then why bother playing junior scientist and hazard an opinion as to its cause? Whether it's caused by humans or sun spots, you've just declared it no big deal, so why worry about what's causing it? Why this need to protect the reputation of humans?
2. If carbon based emissions are not the cause of climate change, why are you telling us about the cost savings measures you've found for your energy needs? Are you just giving us wise consumer advice?
Reply to frank It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point.
The 1890s required a lot of coal. Remember London was in a giant coal smoke fog back then?
We all were using a lot less energy in 1890, London's coal fog notwithstanding. The really bad smog episodes were caused by temperature inversion layers over London, plus lack of regulation.
Here's a graph of energy usage (in MTOE - million tons of oil equivalent) from https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consumption-1800-2000-results/
What would this kind of dramatic energy reduction mean?
1) much more walking
2) much more bicycling
3) electrified transit on light or heavy rails
4) much more physical labor
5) far fewer chemicals manufactured
6) organic farming, by default
7) much more exposure to hot and cold weather (no air conditioning)
8) much less consumption of dry goods (clothing, for instance), and other manufactured goods
9) no plastics!
10) a smaller population and not by choice
I think the overlooked problem is the relationship between human impact on the ecosystem and population. Global population has tripled in the last 70 years. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a serious eco-crisis - however you want to classify and quantify it - must be living in their own world. Lucky for them.
It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point.
That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century. Can you explain?
Reply to Pantagruel Population is absolutely a problem. While birth rates are falling, the population is still growing -- it reached 8 billion about a year ago.
ChatteringMonkeyMay 21, 2023 at 20:07#8095720 likes
Reply to Pantagruel Beware of pointing to population as a contributing factor in this eco-crisis, you will get accused of being a Malthusian. It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it.
Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway.
Population is absolutely a problem. While birth rates are falling, the population is still growing -- it reached 8 billion about a year ago.
Population is contracting in all the core nations. The next generation will be the first to experience the problems associated with this. Japan will be first I think.
ChatteringMonkeyMay 21, 2023 at 20:13#8095760 likes
I don't think the rate of emission matters much. Produce the emission size from the 1890s over a period of 500 years and you've got a climate crisis.
I does matter some, there are carbons sinks that have more time to draw carbon out of the atmosphere, and slower emissions do mean slower temperature change, which give us and eco-systems more time to adapt.
That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century.
Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming.
It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it.
— ChatteringMonkey
Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway.
It's a thorny issue in more than one way, but a large part of the problem is that acknowledging all the different aspects of the issue, poses fundamental problems to all current dominant political ideologies... They don't seem to be able to incorporate what would be needed into their ideology without becoming something else.
Reply to frank Yes, birth rates have fallen, particularly in industrialized countries. Japan is already experiencing the unwelcome problem of too few young people in relation to the number of elderly people. Who's going to provide assistance and care? China will also experience this problem.
But some countries are not headed for the mushroom shaped demographic distribution in the near future (large elderly population on top, narrow stem of young people). France, India, and the United States, for 3 examples, will probably maintain a good age distribution while also growing slowly. However, projecting very far into the future (like 2123) is a very uncertain game, given how global warming might result in significant crop failure, disease outbreaks, intolerable wet-bulb temperatures over large areas, and so on. (The 'wet bulb' temperature is a measure of heat and humidity. At 95ºF, and high humidity, humans can not cool off -- we experience heat stroke. If we don't get cooled off, then we die fairly quickly.)
Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming.
The oceans scrub about 3 bmt's per year, so I guess you're right. :nerd:
Reply to Hanover Junior scientist? And you, of course, are a senior scientist? Is that the way we treat each other for just expressing opinions? Not really very mature.
I this retired electrical engineer does believe that the Earth system is cyclic in many ways. Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes.
We humans are a fear based species. We're followers. We are given suggestions and off we go yelling and screaming in the streets. The world is ending. The world is ending. No. I don't buy into the hype. Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. I refuse to be sent on a guilt trip over it by the great masses of unschooled lemmings.
I have been toying with solar systems for more than 50 years now, since I was in my peak employment age years. I like using the sun and wind too to enhance my method of living. This is nothing at all to do with fear of climate change. It's about being closer to energy independence. I am not a follower. I walk my own paths in life. I will never be told what to think or do. Never.
I notice in your reply you use all the standard phrases and slogans. Without carbon dioxide our planet would dry up and become a dead rock. But, but, but.... we frantically rave on about the threat it poses to our world. Horsefeathers!!!!
Reply to Mikie Are we going to have a contest to see which of us can out insult the other? Is this the price I pay for not agreeing with convention? In a woke world this is certainly true but I also refuse to be a part of that insanity.
Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. I simply state my opinions. But look at the results? For merely speaking of my beliefs I am subjected to scorn by you.
Climate change is not a matter of beliefs. It's here. I simply say it's a part of the natural cycle of the planet. For that I am ridiculed and cast out of society? Isn't there some little bit of maturity inside of you, somewhere? Why can't you accept that each of us has the right to our own opinions without being trashed through mindless arguments?
"My climate change scientist can beat up your climate change scientist." What drivel!!!
If you're 80 years old, don't you see the same stories played out over and over? Can't you tell where the train will end up by just looking at where the tracks are laid down?
Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything.
So you just like announcing your unbiased skepticism about a topic you don’t understand. Cool. Maybe I’ll start one about how I think quantum mechanics are woke. I’m equally qualified to judge that field.
Reply to frank No. Not exactly. I am truly afraid. Everything has changed. America is in serious decline and those few who care are openly scorned, or worse, if they speak up. Our children are being violated in every way possible yet we can't seem to do anything about it. If we complain too much we risk a visit by federal police. Can it be true that all three of the branches of our government are now harbors of deceit where honor is a lost quality? It certainly seems so.
Globalism has been around for a long time. It's quickened it's pace though. Mass, instant communications, the entire planet being a "local call" through live streaming has enabled the Gobbels of our day to out do themselves in their efforts to influence popular thought. As a result we are reduced to a need to join one camp or the other. Those of us who remain neutral while trying to speak in rational terms become social outcasts.
None of this has happened before in my lifetime. None of it.
Let me here say something quite controversial. As bad as Hitler was in his treatment of Jews and others who dared to speak against him, the man was capable of profound insights. These are revealed in his signature work, Mein Kampf. He foresaw the threat of globalism in the form of communist thought.
In the recent history of the world, no form of government has resulted in more deaths than communism. In every land that it touches, millions perish through civil strife or as a result of mass incarceration. One thing that globalism is very good at is forcing people to obey.... or else. This is a hallmark trait of communism.
Is this really the world we want to live in?
Never in my time have I seen anything even close to this rapidly unfolding drama which is so threatening. We can no longer even trust our electoral process.
What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise.
If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change.
What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise. If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change
At 86, and a one-time meteorologist for the USAF - doing weather briefings for fighter/interceptor squadrons and nuclear packed B52s going back and forth to the edge of the Soviet Union - certified by completing a post-graduate curriculum at the University of Chicago - I am probably qualified to speak here.
Years ago climatology was a mostly statistical study and was considered the "basket-weaving" class we took. Many from that generation may have similar opinions of climate science - the modern version. It's much more sophisticated now, but I suspect it has its flaws, and, like quantum theory, these are beyond the realms of common discourse. However, I think what you read from reputable sources is fairly accurate. Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. So it's best to prepare for what is to a large degree beyond our control.
The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter.
It's not for evesdropping on military sites that the Chinese buy farm lands along the Canadian border with the US. They look long term into the probable future, seeing that agriculture may well move north.
For me the issue is that there is a belief that economy has infinite potential to grow. We always talk about the growth of GDP. And yet we know that resources are finite. And economy is based on resources. So it's impossible to grow indefinitely unless we expand to other planets.
This is totally unbalanced with respect to how nature operates. Nature operates in balance/equilibrium. So destroying it to uphold a notion of infinite economic growth is what is causing a rebound effect - a countering mechanism from mother nature against what is basically "a cancerous growth" - infinite and all consuming - human economy - the pillaging and plundering of resources that work to stabilise the entire system.
Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish
Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish
Sadly your diagnosis is entirely correct, and @Varnaj42 will no doubt welcome the cleansing medicine that Nature will prescribe. But personally I'm not down on the children, I blame the parents.
Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.
Orsnge skies in NY. Living with the effects of climate denial and delay these past 30 -50 years. Thank the Koch brothers.
[quote=Paul Krugman]
But our belated move to do something about global warming will at best slow, not reverse, the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the climate won’t improve — at best, it will get worse more slowly. So for the foreseeable future we’ll be facing ever bigger climate-related disasters. And this future has already begun. Just look up.
[/quote]
I'm not a climate change denier. I'm a climate change regulation denier. I believe the best scientific evidence shows that without global cooperation, our efforts at climate change will be futile. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3219914/we-cant-solve-climate-crisis-without-china-head-german-environment-body-says
I do not believe any regulatory system that depends upon universal harmony and peaceful cooperation is worth taking seriously. If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England.
I also think climate change policies will weaken those nations that adopt them economically and politically. We live in a politically hostile world and that weakening will cause more immediate dangers to safety and well being than rising tides.
That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.
That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.
Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance.
Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance.
I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective.
Additionally, I presented a judgment, which addresses what I wish to achieve, so it's not a dispute over what the science shows, but what my goals are.
What I want is to maintain economic and political superiority over other nations and my current standard of living. This, along with the fact that great sacrifice in this area by me will be greatly diminished by non-compliance of other nations, and those nations will gain a competitive advantage, I choose to focus on responding to climate change as opposed to stopping it.
To the extent there are token measures that I can engage in to appease my opponents so that they will have less political influence over me, I will do that. That is, I'll drive an electric car and pretend it matters, if that means I can avoid more restrictive efforts.
This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. My effort is to maximize productivity because with that comes greater personal freedom and a higher standard of living. This view predominates, even if it is very counter to your own view, which is why a good part of the world is doing as it's doing.
If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not.
Reply to Hanover What's your take on approaches that are less regulatory but promote the research, development, and adoption of green technologies (like with the recently passed IRA in the US)?
That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.
That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board.
Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt.
Third, a lot of adaptation will already be in place of we start now instead of later, making it cheaper, more manageable and less disruptive.
Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground.
Reply to Hanover
[quote= Hanover's cited source]As China’s energy transition gathers pace through the expansion of its renewable energy sources – both wind and solar, authorities are faced with the challenge of storing away the surpluses to integrate their supplies into the country’s gigantic power system and ensure grid stability.[/quote]
We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you.
see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity.
There's the rub. Capitalism isn't the defining feature of humanity, it is one feature of human life. Unfortunately, capitalism functions not only to maximize concentration of capital, as Marx describes it, it maximizes concentration on capital. That is, it strives to assimilate everything into an economic viewpoint. However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being.
However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being.
If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that?
That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board.
You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.
Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want.
Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt.
This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.
For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.
We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives.
Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground.
That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well.
We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you.
:rofl:
I suppose I could better cooperate from time to time.
The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. I'm just a rank and file citizen, limited to purchasing whatever might be in the marketplace, which means I can't buy a toilet that uses the amount of water I had when I was younger and I can't fill my car with fully leaded gasoline. I'm doing my share willfully or not, but it's all doubtfully doing a whole lot of anything.
The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem.
I agree your carbon footprint isn't the issue, it was more your lack of support I was lamenting. That dam bursting in perhaps a century or so is going to raise sea levels and flood some quite large villages.
There is still some uncertainty about the full volume of glaciers and ice caps on Earth, but if all of them were to melt, global sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (approximately 230 feet), flooding every coastal city on the planet.
That's a lot of adapting to do, before any consideration of the actual temperature and climate changes. Is anyone quickly preparing for that? Or slowly?
If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that?
Since the "well-being of the global biosphere" is synonymous with the healthy balanced operation of its component systems, of which we are one, I can only surmise that it would look like an improvement.
Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?
Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?
Probably not worse. In the 1970s there was a lot of focus on reducing pollution and managing the environment intelligently. A lot of that is still in place, though eroded by conservative policies.
I was talking about a bigger transition to managing the environment on a global level; managing the transition out of a growth model, managing the transition to non-carbon based energy sources. But more, what would we have to become to carry those changes forward on a permanent basis? A global government? A new religion?
I think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know?
think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know?
One-hundred percent. Presumably there will be an increase in the general level of social awareness, out of which consensus emerges the forms of governance we deem acceptable. In Canada, there is a growing trend where the government sponsors and supports indigenous-led environmental initiatives.
e.g. Natural Climate Solutions Area-based Conservation
I'd go one better, and get behind indigenous-led governance. Our indigenous groups have always attempted to live in harmony with nature. It's an attitude whose time is long overdue. If you look at the real numbers of politicians involved criminal self-promotion in violation of the public trust, the need for a really new approach seems clear.
ChatteringMonkeyJune 12, 2023 at 20:44#8149410 likes
If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not.
I think attaining these other goals cannot be separated from humanities impact on the planet. It's not only about people having different values, but also about not fully thinking through or acknowledging the ramifications and impacts of climate change and other ecological issues we are facing now. If we do little to mitigate, we'll have a progressively harder time to increase or even maintain standards of living.
I do share your scepticism about the effectivity of global cooperation on this. Geo-political interests and competitivity-loss make it very difficult. But at the same time, if shared interests become high enough in maintaining some semblance of a liveable biosphere, maybe they can come to some minimal deal.
ChatteringMonkeyJune 12, 2023 at 21:14#8149510 likes
One-hundred percent. Presumably there will be an increase in the general level of social awareness, out of which consensus emerges the forms of governance we deem acceptable. In Canada, there is a growing trend where the government sponsors and supports indigenous-led environmental initiatives.
e.g. Natural Climate Solutions
Area-based Conservation
I'd go one better, and get behind indigenous-led governance. Our indigenous groups have always attempted to live in harmony with nature. It's an attitude whose time is long overdue. If you look at the real numbers of politicians involved criminal self-promotion in violation of the public trust, the need for a really new approach seems clear.
In Europe there already has been a decent amount of social awareness of the problem. One war and energy-prices skyrocketing, and that social awareness gets thrown by the wayside... people will choose short term energy-security over long-term ecological impact every time.
The real issue is that our whole economy and society is built on fossil fuels. Aside from energy in the most dense and use-friendly form, plastics, steel, fertilizer, concrete, etc etc.... all the pillars of our economy are derived from refining fossil fuels. We have no idea how to replace those "on scale".
Advocates of a green transition, or green growth have no idea what they are talking about from any practical point of view (engineering, materials, financial, energy), it's pure political theory-crafting without any base in reality.
The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.
We do need a new approach yes, one that is serious about what can be done and takes all the different constraints into consideration.
This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course.
I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).
So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.
ChatteringMonkeyJune 12, 2023 at 21:33#8149590 likes
I was talking about a bigger transition to managing the environment on a global level; managing the transition out of a growth model, managing the transition to non-carbon based energy sources. But more, what would we have to become to carry those changes forward on a permanent basis? A global government? A new religion?
I think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know?
This sounds reasonable, but I don't think this is how it actually works, at least not on the societal scale. How many times in history has a giant transition really been the result of people imagining a new world? I would guest not that many times.
How we get to a new system, is the previous system breaking and being forced to adapt to new circumstances. Necessity is the mother of invention.
This is also why people are having difficulty envisioning the future now (and why I think all current political ideologies are totally off base), we can't predict and see past a phase shift.
The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.
The idea that the environment needs to be safeguarded because it is essential to life scales up just fine as far as I can see.
ChatteringMonkeyJune 12, 2023 at 21:47#8149630 likes
The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.
— ChatteringMonkey
The idea that the environment needs to be safeguarded because it is essential to life scales up just fine as far as I can see.
It doesn't work because in a global economy you get outcompeted by those that cannibalize the environment for any kind of edge... so then there's a systemic pressure against this idea. I personally like it to be clear.
Also I would say that there is a real tension between feeding all of the worlds population and safeguarding the environment. At this point we probably need to continue large-scale mono-culture to get high enough yields... and this is highly destructive for the environment, so much so that it is probably the main cause for bio-diversity loss.
How we get to a new system, is the previous system breaking and being forced to adapt to new circumstances. Necessity is the mother of invention.
This is also why people are having difficulty envisioning the future now (and why I think all current political ideologies are totally off base), we can't predict and see past a phase shift.
True, but when we pick up the pieces, maybe we'll remember the things we dreamed of before it all fell apart.
I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective.
It’s the new line for those who seek to delay what needs to be done: China. The reality is that China has taken bolder action on climate change then the US, which is embarrassing. Up until the IRA, the US had next to nothing noteworthy.
Yes, China and India will have to cut emissions drastically. But we have less control over that than we do our own behavior and policies — and, as a global superpower, our leadership sends a clear message to the rest of the world.
So this reasoning is, putting it as politely as I can, deeply flawed. We can and should do as much as possible to cut emissions as soon as possible and as drastically as possible — regardless of what China or India do. No sense waiting around for other countries to lead the way when we’re supposedly the leader.
If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England.
For the record, this is a strawman. No one is claiming the goal is utopia— nor is utopia necessary, any more than dealing with the ozone hole.
The invasion of Ukraine is important, of course. But just because this is true doesn’t mean unprecedented wildfires whose smoke has wafted throughout the northeast should be trivialized. That “smoke in New England” isn’t just a few rich people being inconvenienced, it’s a sign of what’s in store.
This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity.
It really is ignorance. You don’t have to oppose capitalism — as I happen to — to have sensible solutions. A good example is Jeremy Grantham, a capitalist if there ever was one: https://youtu.be/sAHj6mJrzns
Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?
What’s funny is that there’s plenty of profit to be made and plenty of work to be done. We need to electrify everything, which means transforming our electric grid— and retrofitting buildings, producing more heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, wind turbines, EVs, etc etc. We can use government subsidy and investment to help the transformation— just as we did with the fossil fuel based economy.
None of this has anything to do with destroying capitalism, really — only a psychotic and vicious variation of capitalism, one that’s dedicated to destroying the normal functioning of human life to serve the interests of Exxon.
None of this has anything to do with destroying capitalism, really — only a psychotic and vicious variation of capitalism, one that’s dedicated to destroying the normal functioning of human life to serve the interests of Exxon.
I'm ok with capitalism. But it clearly requires stricter regulation. A socialistically-managed capitalism could work.
You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.
Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want.
There's nothing hostile about raising levies on certain types of products or products from certain countries. This already happens with anti-dumping duties and tax treaties or in attempts to steer consumer choices. Obviously, changing consumer choices through tax discentives/incentives is not an exact science but I doubt solar panels would have been as popular now without them.
This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.
For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.
We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives.
I don't think the analogy works because buying more time usually consists of protective measures and as such this is not really mutually exclusive. More like which combination of measures is the most effective. I think a lower energy dependence for production and services, which directly correlates to CO2 levels, is both environmentally and economically sound if the increased efficiency doesn't lead to higher usage. A lower dependence will mean you're less likely to be affected by disruptive economic events (wars, sanctions, etc.).
That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well.
But historically it has. There are a multitude of multilateral treaties that prove even enemies will agree on all sorts of things. WTO, UN, Geneva and the Hague conventions, Vienna Convention on the laws of treaties, Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, etc.
Pierre-NormandJune 14, 2023 at 09:52#8153030 likes
But historically it has. There are a multitude of multilateral treaties that prove even enemies will agree on all sorts of things. WTO, UN, Geneva and the Hague conventions, Vienna Convention on the laws of treaties, Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, etc.
And the Montreal Protocol that has been ratified by all member states of the United Nations.
Interesting trial in Montana going on right now. A group of children have sued the state government for violating the state constitution by encouraging fossil fuel use. I imagine many more of these lawsuits are in the works. The trial has ended and judge’s orders are expected in a few weeks.
Massive wildfires in Canada still raging.
Smoke blanketing the northern US.
Extreme heat in Texas (upwards of 110-120 degrees) — hotter than 99% of the world at some points.
Another summer, more records breaking and more once-in-a-generation events every month.
But at least climate change is a Chinese hoax. So nothing to worry about.
If goals set under the Paris Agreement are met, the world may hold warming well below 2°C (1); however, parties are not on track to deliver these commitments (2), increasing focus on policy implementation to close the gap between ambition and action. Recently, the US government passed its most prominent piece of climate legislation to date—the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)—designed to invest in a wide range of programs that, among other provisions, incentivize clean energy and carbon management, encourage electrification and efficiency measures, reduce methane emissions, promote domestic supply chains, and address environmental justice concerns (3). IRA’s scope and complexity make modeling important to understand impacts on emissions and energy systems. We leverage results from nine independent, state-of-the-art models to examine potential implications of key IRA provisions, showing economy-wide emissions reductions between 43 and 48% below 2005 levels by 2035.
Reply to Mikie recent research in the Netherlands: Biodynamic farming turns out to have better soil quality and therefore higher yields of crop without spending any money on fertiliser because, surprise surprise, nature is perfectly capable of making stuff grow efficiently. Nature is cheap and efficient if you let it do its thing.
The hippies were right as usual. Local vegan organic whole foods are more healthy for man and environment.
The soil is also an excellent carbon sink, and nature is the best therapist.
But alas, the machines have already taken over and their servants are our politicians.
Who would have thought that adhering to an intricately complex system that has evolved through trial and error for millions of years would yield better results in terms of stability, health, and efficiency compared to humanity winging it?
You all diligently buy nothing but certified organic or biodynamic food then I assume?
I buy everything that has sustainable branding. Of course, it's hard to know if they actually follow it, but at least in the EU, the regulations surrounding it make it hard for companies to circumvent laws and regulations; therefore, it's a bit easier to trust the official markings on products, at least in Sweden. On top of that, buying from local producers is something people should do more if the option exists, as well as buying food that's within season more than out of season.
If you tried to imply some hypocrisy I'm sorry to disappoint, I've been eating and buying with sustainability in mind for years to reap the health benefits, keep bad chemicals out of production and support the local biodiversity. I don't want to live in a future where I breathe industrial smog with cancer-inducing products everywhere I go. If people and politicians had the brain to understand this as well, other places would not be so fucked up.
But as with all climate-changing industries and ways of life that are lazier than sustainability, people just don't care until reality hits them with a sledgehammer. And that hammer has started to swing now. And each time I see that hammer hit people who ignored or fought against sustainable solutions I can't help but feel a good amount of schadenfreude.
It seems that the hammer is the required tool to get people into serious action. A carrot doesn't work, they will just buy the least expensive mass produced chemically sprayed carrot possible and then get surprised when they die too soon.
Just keep the wild fires, heat waves, cold snaps, massive storms, floodings and stuff coming. At some point people will wake the fuck up.
If you tried to imply some hypocrisy I'm sorry to disappoint
You're a rhetorical device in the argument, I don't care what you personally do (unless perhaps, you're wanting to make the argument that no-one is hypocritical in this respect?)
in the EU, the regulations surrounding it make it hard for companies to circumvent laws and regulations; therefore, it's a bit easier to trust the official markings on products, at least in Sweden.
Yes FSC timber is a good example of this even in Europe where their traceability if sometimes shockingly poor, but I think it's a good message nonetheless that consumers demand it, even if the initial response of companies is to first try and have the best of both worlds.
It seems that the hammer is the required tool to get people into serious action. A carrot doesn't work, they will just buy the least expensive mass produced chemically sprayed carrot possible and then get surprised when they die too soon.
I can sympathise with the pessimism, but I don't agree. I think people are not uncaring, I don't think you (and others following your efforts) are just better people. There's factors which put people in better or worse positions to take up those options, but I think it's evident that, if that's true, those factors are not the ones traditionally cited (wealth, freedom) as an abundance of both doesn't seem to do anything. I think the factors are more psychological, more to do with group dynamics and as such if we want to help the situation we'd be advised to look there. But at the very least, even if one disagrees with that theory, it's evident that simply shouting it from the rooftops doesn't work. Something has to change with the approach.
can sympathise with the pessimism, but I don't agree. I think people are not uncaring, I don't think you (and others following your efforts) are just better people. There's factors which put people in better or worse positions to take up those options, but I think it's evident that, if that's true, those factors are not the ones traditionally cited (wealth, freedom) as an abundance of both doesn't seem to do anything. I think the factors are more psychological, more to do with group dynamics and as such if we want to help the situation we'd be advised to look there. But at the very least, even if one disagrees with that theory, it's evident that simply shouting it from the rooftops doesn't work. Something has to change with the approach.
People who are unable to exist in a sustainable way with their environment due to things like low income, geographical placement etc. shouldn't be blamed for anything, but the privileged who keeps ignoring all warnings, keeps acting like their simple act doesn't count, keeps cutting corners in their businesses to maximize profit rather than sustainable profit for environmental sustainability, and politicians who worry more about their ego and power than working for the society that elected them; they simply are the baddies in this matter.
The amount of stupidity or laziness it takes to not understand the simple consequences of major societal actions, like not understanding the effect of spewing particles into the air, not only for CO2 related issues, but the general air quality of the place where people live and breathe and how obvious the connection is to worsened public health. People should be marching in masses, banging on politicians doors to demand action against such things, but they don't. They are riddled with apathy and laziness, hypnotized by mindless entertainment to the point when even the entertainment industry tries to produce cautionary tales about these issues and even then it doesn't transcend their lazy minds.
We live in a time when the knowledge and understanding of how industry and the general publics behavior affects the environment and health isn't some academic knowledge and/or scientists working with complex research. It exists in the general knowledge, education and culture of the general public. Everyone with at least a minor understanding and interest of their place and existence in the modern world should have thoughts and moral thinking about these things, but they're ignorant. And if group dynamics is the problem, then we should blame media, but as I mentioned, even there, in movies, series, documentaries, literature, and even marketing they keep talking about sustainability and its importance while the general public ignores the message.
It takes effort to ignore this amount of knowledge and information for anyone living in a society that keeps information free and uncensored. No one is shouting from the roof top anymore, the information is everywhere around us and people just don't care.
Is it that people don't understand how to vote? How to put pressure on politicians and industries? Have people just given up trying? Is everyone living online and doesn't understand that there's a real world around them that needs actual actions? Or are they mindlessly ignoring everything until that sledgehammer hits them?
How can anyone be ignorant of these topics today? When I ask people why they don't buy things in a sustainable way, or act in other ways for it, it simply comes down to "it's expensive", "oh, I didn't have the time", "oh, what would my act be able to accomplish" and so on. This is from people who got the cash, who got the time and are educated enough to know that each little action from each singular person, affects the whole of society.
Laziness, carelessness, ignorance, egotism and stupidity. There's little reason today for the privileged to make excuses and justifications for their ignorance of these environmental problems.
Laziness, carelessness, ignorance, egotism and stupidity. There's little reason today for the privileged to make excuses and justifications for their ignorance of these environmental problems.
So you're prepared to stand by the assertion that you're uniquely less lazy, careless, egotistical, or stupid than most? Is that genetics, do you think. Or are you just a better person? What's your theory for how you turned out so hardworking, caring, humble and clever?
Reply to Isaac My choices have nothing to do with me pointing out the fact that bio-dynamic farming leads to better results. It's an important fact in light of large agro-businesses (stock feed companies, fertiliser producers, industrialised butchers) insisting they are fundamentally needed in this world when their practises and those they promote with their users, clients and suppliers make the Netherlands less livable each year.
I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs.
Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak. Leaders who can bridge these gaps are what we need but leaders like that don't tend to go into politics because who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays?
My choices have nothing to do with me pointing out the fact that bio-dynamic farming leads to better results.
No, of course not. As I said, they were a lead-in to the point about personal choices affecting corporate decisions. We can't escape the fact that if we all stopped buying nonorganic food, the fertiliser industry would collapse overnight (maybe not a good thing jobwise). We can make progress by other means, but it doesn't mean there's no need to analyse the personal reasons.
I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs.
Almost the opposite for me (veg, milk and meat but no processed dairy). But sometimes the imported stuff uses less fuel overall than, say, heated greenhouses. And organic-elsewhere vs nonorganic-local is a close call usually.
Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak.
Totally. People's responses are what's missing from the debate, it's too often framed (as Reply to Christoffer above) as idiots vs the intelligentsia and who's realistically going to come round to that framing.
Put a celebrity in flares and half the world is wearing them the next day. Why? Because they like to feel part of a group (putting aggressive advertising to one side for now). Ban entry to the 'save the world' group and people will look elsewhere. Make entry too easy and nothing will get done (no one's going to commit more than they need to). But this constant drive to divide up the world into ever smaller combative groups might sell webspace, but it's sure not going to encourage collective action.
who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays?
Douglas Adams:The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
So you're prepared to stand by the assertion that you're uniquely less lazy, careless, egotistical, or stupid than most? Is that genetics, do you think. Or are you just a better person? What's your theory for how you turned out so hardworking, caring, humble and clever?
I was fortunate to have been raised with creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions. You know, what would constitute a pretty normal kind of upbringing in which a person gets the necessary tools to function around facts, knowledge, judgement and how to behave against other people. But that's just my guess since others should judge my behavior for what it is rather than me talking about myself.
I do however find your point with that to be rather weirdly formulated. Almost like whenever a person shows attributes generally considered to be in line with being a "good person" (in this context), then they should in some ways feel bad for being like that in contrast to people who don't care about this extremely topic the world is facing right now. The proof is in the pudding, it's obvious that people aren't caring for the environment as much as we need to based on what people express as a general public. Even when it's talked about everywhere in media, too few cares about it. So few that there's no majority in democratic elections to focus on these issues.
I just think your ad hominem making this about me instead of the population who does not care is rather odd. What's you point? Isn't it better to ask why people don't care rather than ask why some do?
Totally. People's responses are what's missing from the debate, it's too often framed (as ?Christoffer above) as idiots vs the intelligentsia and who's realistically going to come round to that framing.
Put a celebrity in flares and half the world is wearing them the next day. Why? Because they like to feel part of a group (putting aggressive advertising to one side for now). Ban entry to the 'save the world' group and people will look elsewhere. Make entry too easy and nothing will get done (no one's going to commit more than they need to). But this constant drive to divide up the world into ever smaller combative groups might sell webspace, but it's sure not going to encourage collective action.
You fail to see that it's the antagonists of actions to make the world sustainable who are the ones dividing the world, not the ones who propose actions to fight climate change. All of us have been fighting for inclusion of everyone acting together and getting as many on board that fight as possible, but what does it matter when we have politicians and a large portion of people who just don't care? It's not our fault that the world is going to climate hell when we've been trying to get information, education and action going for many many years.
I don't get how you are somehow blaming the polarization on the ones who's trying to globally get everyone on board to solve this? Why don't you ask the ones who are working hard to fight against fixing climate change what their motivations are? If they were on board we wouldn't have been in this mess.
I was fortunate to have been raised with creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions.
Right. Good start, so we need to do something about parenting? How do we get the next generation of children raised with "creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions"? Change schools? Change working hours for new parents? Tackle inflated qualification thresholds to give more free time? Or does shouting about how we're all doomed because of the stupid rednecks somehow get children raised better?
what would constitute a pretty normal kind of upbringing in which a person gets the necessary tools to function around facts, knowledge, judgement and how to behave against other people.
Well clearly it doesn't because you've just been bemoaning the lack of such people. It must be quite an uncommon upbringing, no?
Almost like whenever a person shows attributes generally considered to be in line with being a "good person" (in this context), then they should in some ways feel bad for being like that in contrast to people who don't care about this extremely topic the world is facing right now.
I don't think I've ever suggested you should feel bad about it. I'm suggesting the we think about why you're the way you are when others aren't. Since we evidently need more people like you and fewer like the others that would seem to be the top priority.
You fail to see that it's the antagonists of actions to make the world sustainable who are the ones dividing the world, not the ones who propose actions to fight climate change.
You know about disagreement, right? Your "creative" upbringing included the fact that epistemic peers disagree? Or did miss that lesson? I don't "fail to see", I disagree with you. I might be wrong, of course, as might you. Presumably, that's why we're discussing the matter, to find out? Or is this just a lecture? I thought egotism was one of the traits you were blessed to have avoided?
I come from a principle that humans are naturally quite cooperative and egalitarian (at least within-group). This foundation comes from a study of hunter-gatherer social dynamics. It too might be wrong, of course, but it leads me to the necessary conclusion that if people are acting in non-cooperative ways, greedy, selfish or careless, then something has caused this. If people, like your good self, are acting in cooperative, caring and selfless ways, then nothing has 'happened' as such, that's just how humans are. As such, the only relevant question is what has happened to the selfish ones.
I don't get how you are somehow blaming the polarization on the ones who's trying to globally get everyone on board to solve this?
What's not to get? Or do you mean you just disagree? It's quite simple, I'm wondering if the exclusory rhetoric (telling people they're stupid for holding the beliefs they do) leads people to become more entrenched in those beliefs, and seek out more welcoming groups which might seek to exploit their sense of ostracisation to further radicalise their opposition.
Yes it just depressing, imagine this 20 years further, and probably minimum another 1° C of global warming on top of it. We'll have to deal with this the rest of our lives... but don't worry things have never been better according to idiot geniuses like Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling and like, because the numbers say so!
Scientists have talked about "tipping points", that features of the climate will not change smoothly over time, but will display sudden patterns. Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change?
Anybody?
ChatteringMonkeyJuly 19, 2023 at 06:53#8233510 likes
I don't think anybody really knows BC. Global warming is typically presented in averages, 1° C, 1,5 C, 2° C rise in global average etc... actual temperatures we experience are not averages, and can fluctuate from year to year, place to place. This is by the way probably the biggest issue with climate change, that the extremes will get more extreme... We don't need an average to have people die, or crops fail, one day of extreme weather is enough.
What we are experiencing now could be an outlier, el nino combined with some other chance-events, and temperature could return to the quote unquote "normal" expected climate change adjusted temperatures in the coming years. But it could also be that climate is changing faster than we expected. I don't think tipping points have been incorporated into climate modelling al that well yet, and the IPCC and scientists in general do seem to be on the conservative side in their estimates to avoid being seen as alarmist/unreliable. "Faster than expected" does seem to be a phrase that comes up alot.
Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change?
It seems obviously the case. Sea temps, air temps, Antarctic ice formation and extreme weather events are all off the charts, at once. What science has been warning about for at least 20 years is happening in plain sight. It was also pointed out in respect of the Antarctic sea ice, that the diminution of the floating ice pack won’t have that much of an effect, as the total volume of water is not changed much by it, BUT that it also serves to slow down the glacial flows into the ocean. And if they accelerate markedly, then we could be seeing sea-level changes measured in meters, not centimetres.
Scientists have talked about "tipping points", that features of the climate will not change smoothly over time, but will display sudden patterns
Tipping points aren't necessarily abrupt, it just means it's not as easy to go back to the previous state, sometimes because a positive feedback loop was triggered.
Are the current round of exception heat, exceptional rain, exceptional drought, etc. the result of large systems "tipping", producing dramatic change?
It's El Nino. It's always hotter in some places (cooler in others) during El Nino events. Last year was a La Nina. I think it was the third in a row. It's usually cooler during a La Nina, but we had record highs. That signalled that when we changed to El Nino, it was going to make more record highs.
There are several potential tipping points, and it's very possible we'll set them off. If so, life as we know it is over. Maybe we adapt in some way, but it's an existential risk.
Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.
Half true. What you see and feel in your backyard is also related to the broader global changes. If you're in a draught, or caught in wildfires or a flood, or have your community uprooted by a hurricane -- that is all weather-related, yes, but also climate related. A warmer climate produces more floods, more draughts, more intense wildfires and stronger hurricanes. So while one hot day or one cold day in town X doesn't prove anything about global temperature, frequently extreme events are also not an accident, given what we know about climate change.
What citizens notice and the News broadcasts comment on is weather, not climate. Climate is measured by scientists, not felt in your back yard.
Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly.
And this is an important point. It's unseasonably cool where I am. That's El Nino: it makes it cooler in some places. Likewise, climate change hasn't changed the average temps where I live at all. You can't go by your backyard.
Reply to Mikie The Science article was useful -- particularly the map of major events (tipping points) that could/would/will/might occur at different increases in the global temperature. If we are very lucky, and extremely successful in our efforts to limit the climate increase to less than 2ºC, the climate tipping points will be bad enough, at 3ºC and 4ºC, much worse.
At <2ºC, we can have Greenland and West Antarctic ice collapse, failure of the North Atlantic circulation system, and thawing of the Canadian permafrost.
Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? Local existential threats are here. IF Phoenix, AZ were to lose electric power for a day or two, the total deaths would be in the thousands -- given tightly sealed buildings and dependence on air conditioning, ventilation fans, and water pumps.
At 115ºF in Phoenix, dry heat or not, if you don't have access to a cool refuge, you have a very good chance of dying. Unfortunately, warm blooded animals are designed to maintain body heat, not cool one down quickly. As the internal body temperature rises from 98ºF towards 104ºF --107ºF tissue starts breaking down at the cellular level; heart failure or general organ failure (or melting of cell walls) ensues.
There are a lot of climate disasters we do not have to worry about because, as Jeff Goodell explains in his new book, The Heat Will Kill You First. [I don't recommend the book -- the title is a pretty good summary.]
Not so much. Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, thus observing a single episode tells the homeowner nothing about the relative state of the climate, say comparing preindustrial to current climate temps.
Reply to ChatteringMonkey Oh, just wait until it slightly cools of again since we might be in the top of the current Solar Cycle and then all the denialists will be "it was the Solar Cycle stupid!".
[quote=Wiki]Cycle 25
Main article: Solar cycle 25
Solar cycle 25 began in December 2019.[19] Several predictions have been made for solar cycle 25[20] based on different methods, ranging from very weak to strong magnitude. A physics-based prediction relying on the data-driven solar dynamo and solar surface flux transport models by Bhowmik and Nandy (2018) seems to have predicted the strength of the solar polar field at the current minima correctly and forecasts a weak but not insignificant solar cycle 25 similar to or slightly stronger than cycle 24.[21] Notably, they rule out the possibility of the Sun falling into a Maunder-minimum-like (inactive) state over the next decade. A preliminary consensus by a solar cycle 25 Prediction Panel was made in early 2019.[22] The Panel, which was organized by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) and NASA, based on the published solar cycle 25 predictions, concluded that solar cycle 25 will be very similar to solar cycle 24. They anticipate that the solar cycle minimum before cycle 25 will be long and deep, just as the minimum that preceded cycle 24. They expect solar maximum to occur between 2023 and 2026 with a sunspot range of 95 to 130, given in terms of the revised sunspot number.[/quote]
“Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres told reporters in a New York briefing. “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.”
Yes indeed.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 01, 2023 at 05:14#8259340 likes
Rising temperatures threaten to trigger massive loss of sea ice (and loss of albedo) and eruptions of methane from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean. Over the next few years, feedbacks threaten to start kicking in with increased ferocity and important tipping points threaten to get crossed, such as the latent heat tipping point and the seafloor methane tipping point.
While the causes of the anomalous warmth across the northeastern Atlantic are still a matter of research, there are already several contributing factors to take into consideration. These include atmospheric circulation, air pollution and climate change trends.
Reply to jorndoe
Keep in mind that in one article you posted, the data only went back to 1980. In the other it was 1991. Any legit scientist would tell you that's not enough data to say something about the climate, so the use of "anomalous" doesn't mean what it appears to. Watch out for articles like that.
Did you see they discovered that the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago? That was in a previous interglacial, which is kind of astounding. It means the period we're in is on the mild side. The Greenland ice sheet could melt and we'd still be within normal limits for an interglacial.
We should absolutely be scared senseless. This is unprecedented in human history.
Assuming that your comment is true, what solutions are there that could REALISTICALLY work? I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. And many of the proposed solutions will actually make things worse.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 02, 2023 at 11:31#8262680 likes
Did you see they discovered that the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago? That was in a previous interglacial, which is kind of astounding. It means the period we're in is on the mild side. The Greenland ice sheet could melt and we'd still be within normal limits for an interglacial.
And fossil fuels had not been used when the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago. Something else caused it. This also suggests that we are still within normal limits for an interglacial.
nd fossil fuels had not been used when the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago. Something else caused it. This also suggests that we are still within normal limits for an interglacial.
Yea. When Greenland melts again, the oceans will rise by around 20 feet.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 02, 2023 at 12:34#8262850 likes
Yea. When Greenland melts again, the oceans will rise by around 20 feet.
How long do you think that this will take?
I live about 1 m (metre/meter) above sea level. Currently sea level is rising by about 3 mm per year. I don't need to worry for about 333 years. Even if sea level is rising at 5mm per year I don't need to worry for about 200 years. As Bobby McFerrin sang, "Don't worry, be happy".
I live about 1 m (metre/meter) above sea level. Currently sea level is rising by about 3 mm per year. I don't need to worry for about 333 years. Even if sea level is rising at 5mm per year I don't need to worry for about 200 years. As Bobby McFerrin sang, "Don't worry, be happy".
It's hard to say, but you can look at what's happening now. The east coast of North America is shrinking as we speak. It's been doing that for years, so it would be a little crazy to buy property right on the beach. Rent maybe, but don't buy. I think the abrupt movements will be a result of hurricanes.
So just look around and decide based on that.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 02, 2023 at 12:46#8262890 likes
When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, it’s not hard to see what the problem is.
I believe that it is incorrect to hold those companies responsible for 71% of global emissions. The companies are only supplying what people demand. It is people who must reduce their demands. Then the companies will reduce the supply.
The biggest problem is that most people don't understand the real facts (they believe propaganda). And they don't see what the real solutions are.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 02, 2023 at 13:01#8262970 likes
No thanks. If it makes you feel better, believe whatever you’d like. Doesn’t change the facts.
Many people are concerned about cows because they produce methane. Do you know how many cows there are in the world? Just under 1 billion.
32.62% are in India. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
20.62% are in Brazil. It is a major industry. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
10.77% are in China. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
9.47% are in the United States. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
I try to determine the facts. Many people just believe the propaganda.
The companies are only supplying what people demand.
It’s true that this is a common myth used by industry, but it’s on par with the “carbon footprint”: a way to divert blame to the individual consumer and away from the corporation. It’s brilliant propaganda, no doubt.
Exxon knew about the risks of climate change for decades and deliberately spread misinformation about it— all for profits. To turn around and put the onus on ordinary people is a complete joke.
It’s true that this is a common myth used by industry
Imagine that an oil company shuts down. What would happen?
A new oil company would start up to meet the gap between demand and supply, or an existing oil company would grow to meet the gap between demand and supply.
How does that "solve" climate change?
People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. And even that might not be enough.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 02, 2023 at 13:13#8263020 likes
Please tell me any solution that you have and I will tell you why it won't work.
Like with the ludicrous cow example? Where you simply declare “good luck with that”? That’s not an analysis— it’s childish nonsense.
I’m not interested in the armchair thoughts of a random internet guy, or what s/he thinks is possible or isn’t possible. The facts are quite clear; the climate scientists are quite clear. The solutions are already available and being employed. I’ll repeat: the issue is time and political will. For some industries, like cement and steel, we’ll need more funding and research— even though technologies already exist that look promising.
But like I said, if you want to go on believing that it’s impossible, for whatever reason, you’re welcome.
People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. And even that might not be enough.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. Sounds more like an ad hominem to me.
My wife and I did a little excursion for lunch on Sunday (my Mini got 60 mpg on the trip so I don't feel so bad about that). On the way home we stopped at a rural antique store. I parked next to a giant black Ford truck that was idling, nobody in it. The people were walking around browsing the store. They just left it idling for 20 minutes or more to keep the AC going. It wasn't even that hot out.
People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem. However if a majority of people won't wake up to the fact that they are causing the problem, they might still get behind initiatives to curtail production through increasingly stringent regulations, thereby indirectly regulating their own behaviours.
Who are you and why are you trolling this thread?
— Mikie
People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. And even that might not be enough.
— Agree to Disagree
Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. Sounds more like an ad hominem to me.
Plus he's right. People would have to reduce their demand.
My wife and I did a little excursion for lunch on Sunday (my Mini got 60 mpg on the trip so I don't feel so bad about that). On the way home we stopped at a rural antique store. I parked next to a giant black Ford truck that was idling, nobody in it. The people were walking around browsing the store. They just left it idling for 20 minutes or more to keep the AC going. It wasn't even that hot out.
People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem. However if a majority of people won't wake up to the fact that they are causing the problem, they might still get behind initiatives to curtail production through increasingly stringent regulations, thereby indirectly regulating their own behaviours.
Every year I'm amazed at the demand for air conditioning. People make their dwellings colder in the summer than they would be in the winter.
Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll.
To come here and announce “Give me any solution and I will tell you why it won’t work,” use an example of cows, declare “good luck with that,” and expect to be taken seriously, is exactly the issue. Whether it’s truly trolling or just childishness, I don’t know.
To come here and announce “Give me any solution and I will tell you why it won’t work,” use an example of cows, declare “good luck with that,” and expect to be taken seriously, is exactly the issue. Whether it’s truly trolling or just childishness, I don’t know.
Granted, that last part was really poor. However, up until then I thought the points were legitimate. The best argument becomes meaningless when it declares itself unassailable.
People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem.
Which is the same excuse fossil fuel companies give. Just lower your carbon footprint. Never mind that the entire continent of Africa emits only 4% of global emissions a one ton per capita. Their “inherent stupidity” and “ignoring their own culpability” is the “real” problem.
Give me a break. The issue is that the wealthier nations have benefited from fossil fuels for over a century and have crippled government ability to do anything about it. Despite having the solutions right in front of us.
If ordinary people are responsible for anything it’s allowing themselves to be fooled by propaganda. But even there the fight has never been fair.
Never mind that the entire continent of Africa emits only 4% of global emissions a one ton per capita.
What does this have to do with anything? Obviously, the problem has to be addressed where it is created. If I read you right, you would advocate for a campaign of public awareness to drive political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly.
It's almost like they enjoy the exaggerated sensation of being in control.
For a lot of people it's normal to sit watching television, eating carbs because the television is tedious and boring, probably taking some addictive benzos, so just crank up the air conditioner. I don't think they're trying to overconsume, it's just that their world is configured to keep them in that state.
Overhauling the system would be difficult to engineer.
unenlightenedAugust 02, 2023 at 14:09#8263180 likes
The way to change demand and behaviour is with incentives and disincentives. A tax on meat, a subsidy on public transport. The way to change production is by regulation with a Ban of CFC s for example, or a ban on the sale of gas boilers, or change the building regulations. The world can be reconfigured quite easily, we have been doing it for centuries.
The way to change demand and behaviour is with incentives and disincentives. A tax on meat, a subsidy on public transport. The way to change production is by regulation with a Ban of CFC s for example, or a ban on the sale of gas boilers, or change the building regulations. The world can be reconfigured quite easily, we have been doing it for centuries.
It's doable. People would be healthier if we did. Reduced healthcare costs...
political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly.
:up:
Sounded as if you were saying something along the carbon footprint line, which directs responsibility on the consumer a la the tobacco industry of yore. But if you weren’t saying that — my fault for misreading.
Yes. After COVID, I think people got a sense of just how quickly governments can move if they want to. Prior to that, at least in the states, the example was WWII — but that’s simply not as visceral (or remembered).
Reply to Mikie I think that arguing about the nature of the problem when the solution is the same describes exactly the fragmentation of political will by diversity of interests. Everyone has a pet peeve, so there are themes of protest identifying different groups. Each is aiming for a "better world," and their overall set of priorities are probably the same, except they disagree as to "what is to be fixed first." When if they pooled their collective agreements, they could realize the political will to address all the problems collectively, which is probably a whole lot more realistic as they are all interrelated.
Reply to Mikie, well, personally, I've been increasingly worried about the environment since ehh the 1980s I think. :) (paralyzing panic doesn't help though)
unenlightenedAugust 03, 2023 at 08:59#8265320 likes
Reply to jorndoeReply to Benkei 70's for me. I was a member of the whole food cooperative that became wholesalers as Suma in 1977. Amazingly, they have managed to survive without me all this time since.
Reply to unenlightened I'm sure with your psychology degree the vegetables are a bit more depressed nowadays.
unenlightenedAugust 03, 2023 at 15:50#8266150 likes
Reply to Benkei :cool: Ah, I remember the good old days of Silent Spring and acid rain and the ozone hole, back in the days when the world seemed worth worrying about. The runner beans are doing well this year though, that's private practice for you.
Democrats: It's raining.
Republicans: No it's not.
Media (without bothering to look out the window): There's a political dispute about whether or not it's raining.
Just saw this. Accurate.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 04, 2023 at 06:09#8267880 likes
The facts are quite clear; the climate scientists are quite clear.
Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. Haven't they heard of Zoom meetings?
unenlightenedAugust 04, 2023 at 10:48#8268120 likes
Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. Haven't they heard of Zoom meetings?
I have not only heard of Zoom meetings, I've participated. They do not seem to work very well in establishing a practical consensus and strategy between parties with divergent interests.
But if your unspoken suggestion is that because scientists in their private lives conform to the society as it exists and functions, rather than the one they think we should be working towards, and that this is a hypocrisy that invalidates climate change, then it is either a foolish error, or a deliberate misleading. I wonder which?
If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous.
I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth (see the following graph).
I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average winter temperature, and the average summer temperature for each country.
I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country. I have a nice graph which shows the combined data.
Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you?
Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP.
Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.
Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).
If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous.
No, it’s a very real problem. Your characterization of the solution, and your dismissal, is ludicrous.
Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change.
Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Since you claim to want a discussion, and aren’t here to troll, lets begin. Let me know where you get confused…
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 05, 2023 at 04:02#8270740 likes
Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Let me know where you get confused…
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
The only thing that confuses me is how you can have such a simplistic view of climate change.
Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment:
- how much water vapor was in each glass container? Water vapor, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas.
- what was the concentration of CO2 in the glass container which had more CO2 ? Was the concentration of CO2 extremely high in that container?
- you say that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest. But was there a temperature difference between the two containers after a time period long enough for equilibrium to be established?
- were the two glass containers subjected to a day/night cycle like the Earth is?
- Is the Earth in a glass container?
The world can be reconfigured quite easily, we have been doing it for centuries
We have been reconfiguring the world for centuries -- true. It was definitely not "easy".
The Industrial Revolution demanded extremely strenuous efforts from hundreds of millions of workers, animals, and machines. Further, it took a couple of centuries to accomplish (and, of course, raise CO2 levels enough to make life increasingly difficult).
Take automobiles. There are about 1 billion cars on the world's roads, almost all of them burning fossil fuel. Replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion batteries, and the building generating capacity to keep them all charged, will not be easy.
There are, roughly, 140 million houses just in the US. Most of them are heated or cooled with fossil fuel (directly or indirectly) and many of the houses are poorly insulated. Electrifying 140 million homes and building the requisite wind and solar generating plants will not be easy.
Even acquiring the land and permits to build wind and solar plants is difficult. Building long power transmission lines between windmills and cities requires the acquiescence of many litigious, uncooperative agents.
And so on and so forth.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 05, 2023 at 11:07#8271680 likes
Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ?
Here is one example. There are many more.
There are nearly 12 million people who live in Moscow, Russia. All temperatures are in degrees Celsius.
– the average temperature of the coldest month = -12.1
– the average temperature of the year = +4.4
– the average temperature of the hottest month = +22.1
Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? Or are they having street parties to welcome global-warming?
Note that you can still freeze to death at a street party in Moscow. Be sure to take a warm jacket.
Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ?
Most people want a hospitable world for future generations. One thing we could do to contribute to that would be to stop emitting CO2. Short of that, slowing down would help.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 05, 2023 at 12:11#8271820 likes
Most people want a hospitable world for future generations.
The people who live in Moscow are probably most concerned about the future generations who will live in Russia.
Russians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Russians.
Americans are probably most concerned about the future generations of Americans.
Chinese are probably most concerned about the future generations of Chinese.
Indonesians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Indonesians.
Brazilians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Brazilians.
Not everyone is concerned about the future generations of everybody.
Many/most people are selfish and most concerned with looking after their own.
This is one of the reasons why climate-change/global-warming is unlikely to be "solved".
You can look up the details if you want to. But what is your point? Are you seriously doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?
We can go into the weeds on the greenhouse effect and the physical properties of CO2 if you like. But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?
Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?
I am talking about the possible effects of water vapor in Eunice Foote's experiments. Did she allow for the amount of water vapor in each of the glass containers?
The amount of global warming from CO2 is affected by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what causes polar amplification. There is not much water vapor in the atmosphere around the poles because it is cold, so adding CO2 causes a certain amount of global warming. But there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere around the equator so adding the same amount of CO2 causes less global warming than at the poles.
But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?
You seem to care about Foote's experiment because you used it to show that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest.
To save you from wasting more of your time, and my time, I will tell you what I believe. I believe:
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level above about 280 ppm
- that a lot of the increase in CO2 levels is due to the use of fossil fuels
- that the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by around 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times
Reply to Mikie
You said recently that we should all be scared senseless about climate change. All sorts of bad things flow from deep seated fear, one of them being that it becomes ok to dehumanize other people with labels. It's something I struggle with as well. We could all do with some practice putting fear aside to see what clouds fall away from our vision when we do, so we might see that we're all in the same boat, we all have basically the same desires and needs.
I think one of the main things driving climate change denial is this very thing: fear. Except it's fear of intellectuals and academics. It's fear that these scientists might be right, and so we should be worried.
Fear divided us so we don't even see one another. All we see is monsters. That's not good.
You seem to care about Foote's experiment because you used it to show that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest.
I pointed it out as a historical fact, which anyone can reproduce. You can do it yourself. You can control for anything you want — put more or less water vapor, throw in methane, anything. The particular experiment from the 1800s isn’t important beyond that. Who cares?
To save you from wasting more of your time, and my time, I will tell you what I believe. I believe:
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level above about 280 ppm
- that a lot of the increase in CO2 levels is due to the use of fossil fuels
- that the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by around 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times
Does that make me a "denier" ?
Not in the Bjorn Lomborg sense, I suppose.
So you say all this and yet bring up things like Moscow and how cows are a major industry and thus we won’t solve the issue. Why?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 05, 2023 at 13:54#8272150 likes
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level above about 280 ppm
- that a lot of the increase in CO2 levels is due to the use of fossil fuels
- that the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by around 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times
You do curiously leave out the link between the CO2 increase and the temperature increase.
Questions like this is why I say you’re an average climate denier, or at least parroting their greatest hits.
Do you care that the people who live in Russia are too cold? I don't think that you care.
So why should the Russians care if you are too hot. Once you are economically or climate damaged the Russians will be able to take over your country. You should learn to speak Russian.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 05, 2023 at 14:08#8272260 likes
You do curiously leave out the link between the CO2 increase and the temperature increase.
I am not sure whether CO2 is responsible for 100% of the temperature increase. It is probably responsible for the majority of the increase in temperature.
The science is never settled. It must change if new data or observations are incompatible with the existing science. That is why I am not 100% sure.
Wouldn't the energy produced by fusion power be much much much greater than the energy produced from natural gas?
Sort of like comparing a sword to a guided missile.
That kinda depends on a lot of practical engineering questions that we don't yet know the answers to. Technically fusion could produced a ton of power on a small footprint, but it's also possible it ends up similar to fission power in that you need large investments and as a result the returns aren't that high comparatively.
So why should the Russians care if you are too hot. Once you are economically or climate damaged the Russians will be able to take over your country. You should learn to speak Russian.
Well they should care because it's not a zero sum game. It's a negative sum game where all the bad consequences (desertification, collapse of ecosystems, unliveable cities) are going to hit us first and only after that will new opportunities slowly open up.
And because having lots of resources helps in weathering the storm, the nations who are on top when shit starts going down will probably be the ones who suffer least.
It is settled. In any meaningful sense whatsoever, it’s settled. It’s as settled as the earth being spherical.
Notice how the “science is never settled” trope gets used selectively. Especially when one knows next to nothing about the topic. Quantum mechanics? Science isn’t settled. Electromagnetism? Science isn’t settled. “Science is never settled!” They become armchair philosophers of science.
Easy, tired slogans.
I’ll simplify it further:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Burning fossil fuels increases CO2.
3. With increased CO2 comes an increase in global temperatures— as seen in the graphs from my post above.
Replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion batteries, and the building generating capacity to keep them all charged, will not be easy.
You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one.
That's a relief. I was feeling slightly anxious about it.
In 2017 and 2018 the world produced 97,000,000 cars. More than I thought, but most of these were internal combustion powered. By 2025 the total number of electric vehicles on the road will be around 70,000,000 and somewhere between 10 million and 14 million are produced yearly in the world.
The numbers of electric cars are increasing rapidly, but it will be quite a few years before the CO2 burden of gas powered cars is lifted. Then we have to consider how the electricity for electric cars is being produced. Windmills? Solar arrays? Nuclear plants? Hydro? Natural gas? Coal?
Last year 12% of the world's electricity was from solar and wind--better than I thought, but still, a long way to go, especially in the US.
Fortunately I do not have to generate the world's electricity on my bicycle powered generator.
unenlightenedAugust 05, 2023 at 19:50#8273560 likes
Reply to BC It would be great if governments incentivised the changes through taxation and subsidy. And even maybe directly building some generating infrastructure, but there seems to be a shortage of very stable genii in most governments. For buildings, for example a limit on rental charges permitted depending on the certified energy efficiency. Not very 'unregulated free market', but still... making stuff worth while doing is a good way to get folk to do stuff.
Reply to unenlightened
Last year the US government spent $15 billion subsidizing renewable energy, you get a $7500 IRS credit for buying an electric car, and in my state you get a 30% tax credit for using solar power. That kind of thing isn't unusual.
unenlightenedAugust 05, 2023 at 19:57#8273580 likes
Do you care that the people who live in Russia are too cold?
— Agree to Disagree
So much for a good faith discussion about climate change.
As with most climate deniers, the conversation has to devolve into nonsense.
Why does talking about the people who are too cold stop this being a good faith discussion?
You call me a denier whenever you disagree with me. You say that my ideas are nonsense whenever you don't want to discuss them. I have refrained from labelling you because I want to have a genuine discussion about climate-change/global-warming. It is you who is stopping us having a good faith discussion.
You call me a denier whenever you disagree with me. You say that my ideas are nonsense whenever you don't want to discuss them. I have refrained from labelling you because I want to have a genuine discussion about climate-change/global-warming. It is you who is stopping us having a good faith discussion.
No, it's you. I gave you a long, detailed post explaining what climate change is. You respond with irrelevancies like "It's cold in Moscow."
If that's truly where your head is at -- to the point where you can't even see how stupid and irrelevant that statement was -- I'm not interested. You're not directing where the conversation goes, and I won't be dragged into a discourse on nonsense.
If you have something to say about climate change, or anything substantive about my post, by all means go for it. If there's some semblance of a point to be made by stating that one region of the world is cold, make it. Otherwise you're wasting my time and everyone else's.
(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings")
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 06, 2023 at 00:21#8273820 likes
No, it's you. I gave you a long, detailed post explaining what climate change is. You respond with irrelevancies like "It's cold in Moscow."
I am not disputing what climate change is, and I am not disputing that it is happening. I am pointing out the difficulty of "solving" climate change.
The cold temperatures in Russia are not irrelevant to the people who live in Russia. The people who live in Russia would probably like some global warming (nicer temperatures, winters not so harsh, more usable land, longer growing season, etc).
The "problem" of global warming is a difficult one to solve, and probably needs everyone to cooperate.
Why should the Russians cooperate with you?
How cooperative will these countries be? (they all have average summer temperatures below 25 degrees Celsius)
- Greenland
- Faroe Islands
- Norway
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Channel Islands
- United Kingdom
- Netherlands
- Denmark
- Finland
- Germany
- Switzerland
- Sweden
- Estonia
- Saint Helena
- Latvia
- Belgium
- Lithuania
- New Zealand
- Mongolia
- Austria
- Russia
- Czech Republic
- Belarus
- Chile
- Canada
These counties might say that they will cooperate, but how hard will they really try?
So the Russians won’t cooperate because it’s cold in Russia. Which is like arguing that the Cook Island don’t care about nuclear proliferation, since they have may survive a nuclear war.
What a low opinion you have of Russian people. In fact, polling shows majorities consider climate change a threat and want to do something about it— despite massive propaganda from this Petrol State.
The Russian government also signed the Paris Accords. The elite pay lip service to climate change but have so far done very little— not a surprise, given their economy.
These counties might say that they will cooperate, but how hard will they really try?
Many are trying much harder than us, in fact. With the exception of Canada, I think, all of them have lower per capita emissions than we do. So they’re trying harder and contributing less at the same time.
The issue, as I said at the beginning, is political will. Other countries have much stronger action plans on climate change. The dopey US, with one major party full of climate deniers, has only tepidly entered the fight with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which incentivizes EVs, heat pumps, induction stoves, solar panels, etc. — all of which are important technologies. It seems a decent signal to the rest of the world.
There are real roadblocks. Nothing you mentioned, of course, because you don’t know what you’re talking about — but problems like building transmission lines, dealing with permitting and NIMBYism, plugging old oil wells, sealing the leakage of methane from natural gas wells, countering misperceptions about nuclear power, etc., are all real problems. But they’re not impossible. As the climate keeps beating down on more and more people, you’ll start seeing more changes. It’s whether or not there’s enough time— that’s the only question.
To come here with one argument: “throw a solution at me and I’ll make up a reason why it won’t happen,” is really strange. Guess you figured it would make you look interesting in some way. The reality is quite the opposite.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 06, 2023 at 21:46#8276760 likes
I believe that these roadblocks won't be overcome.
Right, you’re here to say “it can’t happen.” Just like those who said we’d never solve the ozone hole problem. Just a wave of the hand. Don’t have to learn anything or know anything, just point and say “way too hard— won’t happen.” Yeah, I suppose if everyone had attitudes like yours, it’d be a guarantee that nothing will happen.
Fortunately, even those who are pessimistic stress the importance of action. I value their onions; I don’t value yours. And for a simple reason: you haven’t shown even an 8th grade understanding of climate science.
I value their onions; I don’t value yours. And for a simple reason: you haven’t shown even an 8th grade understanding of climate science.
As I said in an earlier post, I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected actual temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth.
After quality control I ended up with data for just over 24,000 locations on the earth. For each location the data includes:
- yearly and monthly average temperatures
- yearly and monthly average high temperatures
- yearly and monthly average low temperatures
I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average low temperature of the coldest month, and the average high temperature of the hottest month, for each country.
I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country.
The following graph shows the data for each country. Each country is plotted as a rectangle. The height of the rectangle for a country goes from the average low temperature of the coldest month to the average high temperature of the hottest month. The width of the rectangle for a country shows the population of that country. The countries have been sorted by the average high temperature of the hottest month. Some of the countries with large populations have been labelled.
Also shown on the graph are:
- the average temperature of the land (averaged by area for 216 counties), This is the red line and equals 15.6 degrees Celsius
- the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the earth).This is the blue line and equals 19.7 degrees Celsius
Note that the average human lives at a warmer temperature than the average land temperature.
Here is an example of using the graph. Find the yellow label which says “China” and locate the large rectangle above the label. That large rectangle represents China.
The average low temperature of China’s coldest month is about -2.0 degrees Celsius.
The average high temperature of China’s hottest month is about +30.3 degrees Celsius.
The grey line about half way up the rectangle is China’s yearly average temperature. For China, this is about +15.0 degrees Celsius.
The population of China is about 1,420,062,022 (the width of the rectangle).
There is a lot of information contained in the graph. One interesting thing that can be done is to choose a country and add some amount of global warming to the average high temperature of the hottest month. Then look to see which countries already have (without any global warming) an average high temperature of the hottest month higher than the first country chosen with global warming.
For example, Russia with +7.5 degrees Celsius of global warming will still have an average high temperature of the hottest month lower than America's with no global warming.
For example, Russia with +7.5 degrees Celsius of global warming will still have an average high temperature of the hottest month lower than America's with no global warming.
So you’ve gathered data and put it into a graph — which thousands of climate scientists have also done — and then conclude with, once again, talking about how Russia is cold.
And this is supposed to disprove my quote statements above— which I stand by wholeheartedly. Hilarious.
It’s cold some places, it’s hotter other places. No kidding. Do you have a point to make or are you now just talking into the ether?
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 07, 2023 at 16:44#8280100 likes
Reply to Mikie If his point is that some countries won't coöperate he obviously does have a point. Whatever Russia says in COP related meetings, it won't reduce its extraction of fossil fuels because its entire economy depends on exporting that stuff.
And Russia isn't alone. Most countries have been making promises that they apparently have no intention of fulfilling. The issue is internationally recognized at least since the Kyoto protocol of 1992. And emissions only have gone up since, eventhough the whole idea was to limit and reduce emissions... This is more than 30 years ago, why would things suddenly change now?
And if one looks deeper into the energy-economics of it, I think it quickly becomes apparent why we have failed. Fossil fuels are the economy. That's the dirtly little secret nobody wants to acknowledge... because acknowledging that ultimately also means acknowledging that we probably can't have a world with 8 billion people having a reasonably affluent modern life-style.
This is where all the cognitive dissonance comes from, from all sides of the political aisle... at some point the issue of climate change (and the ecological crisis more generally) clashes with some aspect of the ideology one holds dear. And then we tend to deny the things that clash with the ideology, because it's harder to change deep seated valuations and ideologies than denying reality. Conservatives will often flat-out deny climate change or deny the consequences, liberals and socialists will deny that we can't just change our economy by swapping out fossil fuels and keep our affluent life-styles at the same time... and greens will deny that we can't return to some prestine garden of eden type earth.
MerkwurdichliebeAugust 07, 2023 at 17:00#8280210 likes
You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one.
That's the ticket. Its so simple.. We can all be nice to each other and all war will end ... and everyone will be happy. Then we can all grow flowers, and everyone will play with puppies, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows forever
at some point the issue of climate change (and the ecological crisis more generally) clashes with some aspect of the ideology one holds dear.
I don't think that's it. I think people want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. They also want to combat climate change, but they really want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. It's ideology clashing with consumerism.
Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well.
I think we're going to need a world government with some teeth because there are existential issues that keep popping up: climate change, Ai, genetic engineering, nanotechnology.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 07, 2023 at 17:32#8280330 likes
Reply to RogueAI Ok maybe I can buy that to some extend, a lot of people aren't really all that politically motivated at all.
But saying they want to combat climate change, isn't really true insofar as combatting climate change precisely entails less of these things they really want. That's a bit like saying, I want to be a top athlete, but I don't want to train for it... then you don't really want to be a top athlete.
I guess part of the problem is that contempory poltical ideologies give them justification for believing that they can have both consumerism as they have it now, and combat climate change at the same time. Maybe that's precisely part of their appeal, in democracies especially where the majority of votes determine who's in power.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 07, 2023 at 18:05#8280390 likes
If his point is that some countries won't coöperate he obviously does have a point.
— ChatteringMonkey
Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well.
Yeah, but then a global goverment comes with its own set of problems, a heavy bureaucracy would be one of them. And a lot of power attracts all types of nasty figures invariably, so i'm not sure that would do it. But maybe some type of seperate organisation that gets funding and power specifically to tackle this problem could help... I don't know exactly.
It's not only about the raw energy, but also in what form it comes, how easy is it to use etc. Nuclear fission for instance probably can compete with fossil fuels on Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), but the problem is you can't turn it on or off at will like fossil fuel plants... it's mostly a base load, and what we need is peak power.
And maybe more importantly, we need fossil fuels not only for energy, but for all the derivatives, like plastics, chemicals, fertilizer etc etc etc... For instance we do not know how to make fertilizer in an economically viable way without natural gas. This means we need to rethink and remake our entire agriculture if we want to produce enough food without cheap fertilizer.
The same is true for most of the economic sectors. We literally need to rethink most of them from scratch, because they organically grew out of cheap and easy to use energy and the readily available waste and byproducts of refining oil and gas. It's hard to overstate the enormity of this exercise, because years of iterative innovation on these existing processes and enormous amounts of capital investements need to be throw away to basically start over.
Yeah, but then a global goverment comes with its own set of problems, a heavy bureaucracy would be one of them. And a lot of power attracts all types of nasty figures invariably, so i'm not sure that would do it. But maybe some type of seperate organisation that gets funding and power specifically to tackle this problem could help... I don't know exactly.
But corruption will be there no matter what we do. Some people are going to look for ways to exploit what exists to the detriment of others. That's just human. The thing about corruption, though, is that it depends on its host. It doesn't want to destroy the social order. It will act to protect it if need be, because it needs it.
That said, we'd probably need a new global religion as well, to glue the global order together. I think we're probably about due for one.
It's not only about the raw energy, but also in what form it comes, how easy is it to use etc. Nuclear fission for instance probably can compete with fossil fuels on Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), but the problem is you can't turn it on or off at will like fossil fuel plants... it's mostly a base load, and what we need is peak power.
And maybe more importantly, we need fossil fuels not only for energy, but for all the derivatives, like plastics, chemicals, fertilizer etc etc etc... For instance we do not know how to make fertilizer in an economically viable way without natural gas. This means we need to rethink and remake our entire agriculture if we want to produce enough food without cheap fertilizer.
The same is true for most of the economic sectors. We literally need to rethink most of them from scratch, because they organically grew out of cheap and easy to use energy and the readily available waste and byproducts of refining oil and gas. It's hard to overstate the enormity of this exercise, because years of iterative innovation on these existing processes and enormous amounts of capital investements need to be throw away to basically start over.
And I don't think this is the kind of change that we can engineer for ourselves. As you say, it's too deeply rooted in what and who we are. We can't preserve ourselves and our way of life. All we can do is bless future generations in their quest for life.
So it really comes down to this: how much faith do you have in your own species? People who hate humanity will just be bitter no matter what. People who love it and believe in human genius, will see that there's a way.
I think we're going to need a world government with some teeth because there are existential issues that keep popping up: climate change, Ai, genetic engineering, nanotechnology.
Bananas. People keep slipping on bananas. That too. :groan:
So it really comes down to this: how much faith do you have in your own species? People who hate humanity will just be bitter no matter what. People who love it and believe in human genius, will see that there's a way.
There's a third option. I think these problems precisly come from being to smart, from being to succesfull. We managed to outsmart the ecology we came from, outgrew and degraded it in the process... and may ultimately fail because we do still depend on it. Icarus was smart too...
There's a third option. I think these problems precisly come from being to from being to smart, from being to succesfull. We managed to outsmart the ecology we came from, outgrew and degraded it in the process... and may ultimately fail because we do still depend on it. Icarus was smart too...
Seems like Kurt Vonnegut mentioned that solution.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 07, 2023 at 23:56#8281570 likes
So you’ve gathered data and put it into a graph — which thousands of climate scientists have also done
Your response shows that you don't really know much about climate-change/global-warming.
Do you know what the difference is between a temperature anomaly and an actual temperature?
Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies. They hardly ever tell the public about actual temperatures (unless it is a high actual temperature).
Why? Because global-warming looks a lot less scary when you look at actual temperatures.
To calculate temperature anomalies you need to use actual temperatures. So climate scientists already have the actual temperatures available with no extra work. But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public.
That is why I have put a lot of work into finding the actual temperatures for each country/location.
The following map shows the actual temperatures for the Earth in January. This is the Northern Hemisphere Winter and the Southern Hemisphere Summer.
The resolution of this map is 2 degrees latitude by 2 degrees longitude. The same resolution as the GISTEMP temperature anomaly data.
Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold.
"Sea ice around Antarctica reached its lowest extent on February 21, 2023, at 1.79 million square kilometers (691,000 square miles). That’s 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles) below the previous record-low reached on February 25, 2022—a difference that equates to an area about the size of New York state."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151093/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-another-record-low
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 00:25#8281730 likes
Reply to RogueAI You left out some important information from the webpage that you quoted.
In February 2023, sea ice around Antarctica reached the lowest extent ever observed since the start of the satellite record in 1979. But despite several recent years of low extents, the long-term trend for sea ice in southern polar waters is essentially flat; it is the declines in sea ice at the other pole—in the Arctic—that are pushing the global sea ice trend downward.
Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies.
Care to give any examples whatsoever?
Anyway, this is yet another denialist claim— i.e., the climate scientists aren’t being truthful with the public or giving the whole story. Usually it’s confined to the liberal media, not scientists themselves— but you take it a step further.
Anyway, you’re wrong. What you’re referring to is talk about average global temperatures. Anomalies are certainly seen on this level, yes. Which is why year after year breaks records (of measurements that began in the late 19th century).
You’re just confused about “anomalies”, apparently thinking scientists only report on the specific areas that are breaking heat records (which also explains your odd obsession with the “coldness” of Russia). This doesn’t even make sense, though, when you contrast it with “actual” temperatures: even high temperatures that break records (“anomalies”) are “actual”: they’re as real as any other temperature.
The real contrast to “actual” would be “speculative” in some sense, or perhaps somehow based on modeling (opposed to “real” thermometer readings).
So nothing you’re saying makes sense.
Here are the facts:
- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution
As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).
But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public.
Again— this is a climate denial argument. Somehow climate change isn’t “scary” (and perhaps not even real) because scientists are withholding information or are deliberately scaring the public.
What examples do you have? What could you possibly mean by “actual” temperatures? The temperature today in New Hampshire was a high of 79 and a low of 54. Which one is “actual”? If the average temperature today was 65, is that not real?
Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold.
Yes…and?? What is your point? And are these averages for January? Are averages “actual” temperatures? If so, then that’s exactly what climate scientists talk about — which you claimed they don’t. They report on average global temperatures for each year — which is what you hear about in the news.
Reply to Mikie Your interlocutor's pretence of rationality is risible. It's dubious that such oxygen thieves deserve any sort of interaction, let alone attempting to explain science to them. It's not going anywhere, and has the unintended consequence of providing them a platform.
You’re more restrained than I am. This is a particularly important issue for me — which also makes it difficult to discuss with people who so arrogantly display their ignorance.
Reply to Mikie I'd say pick your fight. If, after you explain climate change so cogently, the reply is a verbose "But it's cold in winter", then you are wasting time that might be spent on folk who can think.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 00:57#8281880 likes
Now, who would have predicted such a witty, erudite and original response.
We geese are intelligent enough to migrate when things get too cold. We fly to locations that are nice and warm. Because warmth is much much better than cold.
If humans cause a bit more global-warming then we geese won't have to waste all of that energy flying. We can stay in a warm paradise without needing to migrate.
If geese drove cars then they would fill them with goose-oline. :rofl:
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 01:39#8281940 likes
Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies.
— Agree to Disagree
Care to give any examples whatsoever?
If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming.
Try looking at this webpage from NASA GISTEMP. You only need to read the first bit, under the heading "The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)".
Agree to Disagree pointed out that addressing climate change may not be possible due to a lack of global unity. As others already pointed out, this is true.
Reply to Agree to Disagree Is your position that we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels and nothing bad will happen? Doesn't that seem a little naive, even without getting into the science?
And why does the spellchecker not recognize "naive"?
Reply to RogueAI
He's said repeatedly that he believes climate change is underway and it's the result of human activity. He just doesn't believe it's possible to address it.
If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming.
They’re all based on averages. Even anomalies, which you seem to barely understand, are based on averages. You cited an average yourself — for the month of January.
The global average temperature in the 20th century was 57 degrees F. There’s nothing “not actual” about that.
Also, having a huge collection of data points around the world is pointless. You take averages— long term and short term averages— to understand changes (whether positive or negative, which are deviations [“anomalies”] from a certain period’s average). Otherwise it’s simply pointless to look at a globe and say “hey, look at all the blue spots in January!”
Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have.
- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution
As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 02:55#8282110 likes
Is your position that we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels and nothing bad will happen? Doesn't that seem a little naive, without even getting into the science?
No, that is not my position.
I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. I am in favor of slowly transitioning away from fossil fuels. This needs to be done at a speed which does not cause large problems.
There are many other important problems that also need our attention (e.g. pollution - not the CO2 kind).
Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons.
Before I give you this list I need to make it clear that I don't/never have worked for any oil company. I have never received any payment or gift/perk from any oil company. I have been a computer programmer for the last 40 years working mostly in the banking industry, but also 13 years in the battery monitoring industry.
Crude oil is very useful for a number of reasons:
- we don't need to chop down an enormous number of trees to use as fuel. Trees are quite slow to regenerate. We want to have lots of trees to hug :grin:
- we don't need to kill whales for oil. Spermaceti from the head cavities of sperm whales and whale oil which is obtained from the blubber of whales :sad:
- 3 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of asphalt to pave roads and parking lots.
- 1 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the manufacturing of lubricants: the greases and fluids that help keep our world running smoothly.
- 15 percent each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of thousands of different items, ranging from makeup to medicine.
These "thousands of different items" include (in no particular order):
- wrapping paper
- mannequins
- ball pits (that children play in)
- artificial leather (don't need to kill so many animals?)
- hard hats
- lotions
- acrylic paint
- hairspray
- dog collars
- fishing rods
- hair color
- lipstick
- manufacture of money
- artificial turf
- kayaks
- sunglasses
- pencils
- drums
- high heels
- styrofoam
- CDs
- porta-potties
- artificial heart valves
- hammocks
- elastic underwear
- balm
- bicycles
- mattresses
- light bulbs
- beer widgets
- microphones
- basketballs
- electric guitars
- photographic film
- cables
- champagne flutes
- christmas lights
- footballs
- ASPIRIN
- football helmets
- toothbrushes
- candles
- baseballs
- dog toys
- etc
- etc
- etc
Of course I have left off the list one of the most important items produced from crude oil
- E-Juice for vaping
How many young people do you know who are willing to give up vaping to reduce global-warming?
Reply to Agree to Disagree Well, India and China are not going to give up fossil fuels. They arrived late to the party. They resent the First World wagging their fingers at them after stuffing themselves silly.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 04:36#8282190 likes
Well, India and China are not going to give up fossil fuels. They arrived late to the party. They resent the First World wagging their fingers at them after stuffing themselves silly.
I totally agree. And don't forget Africa and most of South America.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 05:53#8282260 likes
Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have.
How do you think that I knew about the link that I cited? Do you think that I just guessed it randomly or had I read the paragraph that I suggested you read.
Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".
Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation?
Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.
Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.
50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming.
Below is a map showing the temperature difference between winter and summer for locations on earth. Some places has a temperature difference of over 70 degrees Celsius between winter and summer. Compare this to +1.0 degree Celsius of global-warming. Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 08, 2023 at 07:26#8282390 likes
Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure.
But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".
Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation?
We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on.
Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.
Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.
50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures.
A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise.
And also important to realise is that we do not experiences averages, but we do experience the extremes... a couple of days of extreme temperature is enough to kill a lot of people, animals, and plants and crops. Averages are just there to track the evolution of warming.
And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me.
Plants and animals have evolved to tolerate seasonal change in temperature, but not to tolerate higher or lower extremes. This is not open to discussion, or something to be settled scientifically, but well know fact at this point.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 10:04#8282760 likes
Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
— Agree to Disagree
This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure.
I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures
Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?
Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.
If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 10:17#8282770 likes
We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on.
We don't directly measure the average high temperature or the average low temperature off some device. It is an "average" which requires a statistical calculation.
We directly measure the temperature a certain number of times a day and work out (calculate) what the high temperature is for the day, and what the low temperature is for the day.
There are Weather websites that you can look at to see these values. But how many locations does the average person look at. I looked at data for 36,000 locations so that I got a global picture.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 10:30#8282800 likes
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures.
I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.
Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 10:38#8282810 likes
And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me.
Rate of temperature change = change in temperature / time
If we want the result in degrees Celsius per year, and the temperature changes by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months, then the rate of temperature change = 25 / 0.5 = 50 degrees Celsius per year. Note that this rate of change only applies to the 6 months we are looking at, not the whole year.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 10:54#8282860 likes
A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise.
Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.
Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?
Not all extremes are bad.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 08, 2023 at 11:51#8282930 likes
I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures
Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?
Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.
If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.
Both.
It's a convention, like I said, and makes some sense considering the industrial revolution was the time we started burning fossil fuels, and therefore emitting CO2, which was indentified as a greenhouse gas. But ultimately it doesn't matter what point you take as a starting point, what matters is absolute temperatures and rate of change.
It would be a good thing if all we did was return to pre-little ice-age temperatures, but that's not the case, we going to temperatures not experienced for 100.000 of years, and the rate of change is probably unprecedented in all of earths history.
I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.
Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.
No, it's about 1) extreme temperatures on the one hand, and 2) how fast those are rising on the other.
1) No matter how slow you raise temperatures, we couldn't handle boiling water. There's a maximum of temperature combined with humidity we can handle.
2) Animals and plants have evolved strategies to deal with seasonal changes in temperature, they shed their leaves, they hibernate, they go dormant etc etc... They don't have strategies for dealing with extreme temperatures on top of seasonal changes.
There are more people living in places where increase in temperature is bad, India, Africa etc... Those people will need to move if warming continues because of wet-bulb temperatures, rise in sea-level, failing agriculture... Where do you think they will go?
But more importantly you're missing what it entails for ecosystems. Animals and certainly plants can't adapt to this rapid change in extremes because evolution is a much slower process than the current rate of change caused by climate change. This means a lot of earths ecosystem is or will die off.
Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.
Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?
Not all extremes are bad.
I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people.
And it's not just a little bit higher... changes in extremes are bigger than the average global rise in temperature, and changes in nothern hemisphere averages are also higher than rises in global average.
Also billions of climate refugees will cause problems regardless of whether some rise in temperature isn't that bad locally in some places.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 08, 2023 at 12:45#8283020 likes
Plants don't have legs to migrate to northern latitudes, or heating/clothes to adapt to the worst of extreme temperatures. And animals depend on plants... Even in those places that a couple of degrees wouldn't be that bad for humans, it would be bad for the ecosystems that evolved in temperatures that are changing rapidly.
Pole and glacial ice will melt eventually with a couple of degrees, which means global sea rise everywhere regardless of local temperature. Even if we manage to re-locate this will costs enormous amounts of money because a lot of big cities are built near the coast.
I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.
If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.
I’m glad to see the fully-fledged denier in you coming out. My senses still serve me well I see.
Even after all the politician-like statements about how you “of course” don’t deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes blah blah blah.
First nothing can be done because it’s cold in Russia.
Then scientists around the world are misleading people by focusing on anomalies and averages, rather than the “actual” temperatures that you alone have put nicely in a graph.
Then “what about the little ice age?”
Now: maybe a warming planet is a good thing?
So very predictable. Anyone who can’t see this is a complete imbecile.
Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.
Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally):
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
We haven’t gone over 300 ppm in 800 THOUSAND years. Hence the rapid rise in temperatures.
If we really don’t yet understand why that’s a bad thing— for everyone — then fortunately there’s Google.
Lest we get too caught up in the complete nonsense being spewed by climate deniers on this page, I want to remind everyone of the facts (mentioned before and completely ignored, incidentally):
There are no "climate deniers" on this page. It's a poor form of bullying to intentionally misinterpret someone's posts. Let's not do that.
Understanding climate denial used to seem easy: It was all about greed. Delve into the background of a researcher challenging the scientific consensus, a think tank trying to block climate action or a politician pronouncing climate change a hoax and you would almost always find major financial backing from the fossil fuel industry.
Those were simpler, more innocent times, and I miss them.
True, greed is still a major factor in anti-environmentalism. But climate denial has also become a front in the culture wars, with right-wingers rejecting the science in part because they dislike science in general and opposing action against emissions out of visceral opposition to anything liberals support.
And this cultural dimension of climate arguments has emerged at the worst possible moment — a moment when both the extreme danger from unchecked emissions and the path toward slashing those emissions are clearer than ever.
[…]
Back in 2009, when Democrats tried but failed to take significant climate action, their policy proposals consisted mainly of sticks — limits on emissions in the form of permits that businesses could buy and sell. In 2022, when the Biden administration finally succeeded in passing a major climate bill, it consisted almost entirely of carrots — tax credits and subsidies for green energy. Yet thanks to the revolution in renewable technology, energy experts believe that this all-gain-no-pain approach will have major effects in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
But not if Republicans can help it. The Heritage Foundation is spearheading an effort called Project 2025 that will probably define the agenda if a Republican wins the White House next year. As The Times reports, it calls for “dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”
What’s behind this destructive effort? Well, Project 2025 appears to have been largely devised by the usual suspects — fossil-fueled think tanks like the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute that have been crusading against climate science and climate action for many years.
But the political force of this drive, and the likelihood that there will be no significant dissent from within the G.O.P. if Republicans do take the White House, has a lot to do with the way science in general and climate science in particular have become a front in the culture war.
Reply to Mikie The Republican blindness and mendacity on this issue is truly depressing, but then, I hope that they're heading for a shellacking next year and won't be able to spike the wheels.
Meanwhile, there's been a flurry of articles the last few days about the economic and fiscal reality of actually transitioning to green energy, especially in the UK, where transitioning the power grid is going to cost huge money. See Europe blinks in its commitment to a great green transition (WaPo, gift article).
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 23:10#8284360 likes
Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.
Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?
Not all extremes are bad.
— Agree to Disagree
I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people.
Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold?
[quote=ScienceDaily;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm]Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.[/quote]
[quote=TheGuardian;https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/moderately-cold-weather-more-deadly-than-heatwaves-or-extreme-cold]Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed, according to research that suggests prolonged exposure to moderately cold temperatures kills more people than scorching or freezing spells.
The study of deaths in 13 countries, published in the Lancet medical journal, found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, and that premature deaths are more often caused by prolonged spells of moderate cold than short extreme bursts.[/quote]
[quote=TheBreakThrough;https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change]It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from 2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in heat deaths).
Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming.[/quote]
Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold?
Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh?
Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh?
So warming causes cooling.
I think that the key word in your comment is "might".
For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor?
Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?
For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor?
I'm not scaremongering. I don't want you to be afraid. You have a right to think whatever you want. Don't we all?
Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?
Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you?
That would send the climate into a deep cold spell.
— frank
No sign of that actually occuring, though. It's a theoretical possibility, but the evidence doesn't support it.
It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. So yes, it's a distinct possibility. The evidence supports it.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 08, 2023 at 23:44#8284490 likes
Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you?
I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics.
I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics.
Since this thread has devolved into stupidity, let me try to bring it back to reality:
Global climate change is not a future problem. Changes to Earth’s climate driven by increased human emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are already having widespread effects on the environment: glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, river and lake ice is breaking up earlier, plant and animal geographic ranges are shifting, and plants and trees are blooming sooner.
Effects that scientists had long predicted would result from global climate change are now occurring, such as sea ice loss, accelerated sea level rise, and longer, more intense heat waves.
"The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since pre-Industrial times (starting in 1750).1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.
The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.
— from the “alarmists” and “scaremongers” of NASA, who definitely don’t know as much as the climate deniers (oops, I mean “skeptics”) on this thread.
I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.
— ChatteringMonkey
I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.
In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt.
I agree it's going to be hard to stop global warming, and I agree there are some real tradeoffs (not necessarily between heating and cooling, but between climate change and the economy which is based on fossil fuels), but It's not an all or nothing deal, there are degrees of warming we could mitigate. At the very least we should try to avoid a good amount of the additional warming, as much as possible given other factors that we should take into account (like the economy).
And as I said it's not only about the problems and benefits of heat vs cold, it's also the rapid change of climate that causes problems in itself... The idea of an impoverished biosphere for the next couple of millennia at least is enough to give me pause.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 09:10#8285880 likes
Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries.
Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?
Is it a numbers game? A scorecard? Tens of thousands have died in European heatwaves the last few years. Find me a story on ‘increased deaths through global cooling’.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 09:25#8285910 likes
More heat causes the atmosphere to take up more humidity, which in turn causes more extreme weather like storms and floods. We used to have very few of these in Europe.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 09:37#8285940 likes
I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits
— Agree to Disagree
This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some.
Surely it is a balancing act.
There are some countries which are better off because of the small amount of global warming that we have had. They have a nicer climate, less people die from cold, they have lower heating cost, they have a longer growing season, etc
You seem to want them and other countries to miss out on the benefits of present and any future warming. What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 09:40#8285950 likes
No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 09:54#8285980 likes
Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?
— Agree to Disagree
No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators.
Is it a crime to be very interested in a particular topic?
All of my posts are civil, I provide evidence, and I don't call people names.
Isn't this forum meant to be about the free exchange of ideas?
I have said that I believe that climate-change/global warming is happening. I am discussing the details. Challenging peoples beliefs in a civil way makes for a robust discussion.
Reply to Agree to Disagree I see your point, but at the same time, I am of the view that the facts that you are calling into question are beyond dispute. As I've said, I've put it to the other moderators, I'll leave it at that for now.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 09, 2023 at 10:06#8286040 likes
I see your point, but at the same time, I am of the view that the facts that you are calling into question are beyond dispute. As I've said, I've put it to the other moderators, I'll leave it at that for now.
Thank you for considering my point. For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.
Reply to Agree to Disagree Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose.
Are you here pretending this hasn't been extensively dealt with in the IPCC? The limited local benefits are far outweighed by the negatives. It's not a balancing act at all. We overwhelmingly lose.
If you look at the 2022 IPCC impact report, you'll see that they examine adaptation prospects. In other words, even the IPCC has begun to be skeptical about avoiding climate change. It may be that we win by adapting.
Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.
I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.
Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths--NOAA and the CDC--differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer.
It goes on from there. But it does involve reading, and a bit of nuance when assessing studies— so feel free to ignore it so you can go on happily with your denial.
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed.
Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.
How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?
I’m sure they are. Other scientists will figure out where and how. But I’m not delusional enough to believe I know where they’re wrong or why.
They underestimated the speed of change. No one claimed to have the level of certainty that they do that climate change is happening, and rapidly.
This means climate change is actually worse than expected, btw. You know, that phenomenon that “maybe” is a good thing, as you absurdly and ignorantly suggested?
What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained.
Next time someone’s house is on fire, we should treat it as a balancing act. Clearly there’s benefits. Who are we to deprive them of heat in winter? The smoldering ashes are a great source of warmth. Maybe they can re-sell the charcoal.
You have a right to think whatever you want.
— frank
Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.
I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.
I probably should have said, "I respect your right to think whatever you like about climate change." Because I do.
It’s worth pointing out that @ChatteringMonkey provided substantive responses to @Agree to Disagree, all of which was ignored in favor of other posts— posts that can be brought into the realm of subjectivity, where anyone can have an opinion.
It’s worth pointing out that ChatteringMonkey provided substantive responses to @Agree to Disagree, all of which was ignored in favor of other posts— posts that can be brought into the realm of subjectivity, where anyone can have an opinion.
Again, he hasn't denied climate change. He just doesn't believe there's anything we can do about it, and he believes there will be some benefits from it, which is true.
Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.
Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average.
Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it.
That's not what he said. I'd like you to stop bullying by intentionally misinterpreting. Let's be civil.
unenlightenedAugust 09, 2023 at 14:31#8286670 likes
It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.
It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.
There is never a time when it's ok to be immoral. Never.
unenlightenedAugust 09, 2023 at 14:46#8286720 likes
Reply to frank But in an emergency, what is moral changes. When the boat is in danger of overturning, it is moral to restrain the guy rocking the boat. When there is no danger, let him have his fun.
The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. I'm American. I have a heritage of rationalizing crimes because it was supposed to be necessary for survival.
I learned that it's better to die than to believe there are times when evil is ok. I think there are bullies in this thread who are unjustly attacking a person. I should speak up.
For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.
— Agree to Disagree
'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Yes indeed. But, again, pretty standard (ie, average) for a climate denier.
I posted about this a while back under “selective skepticism.” It’s motivated by something else— in this case, propaganda-driven denial; but not always. Sometimes by money or the feeling of superiority/specialness.
In any case, it usually presents as “ah shucks I’m just asking questions and showing a healthy bit of skepticism” and then fairly quickly reduces to “scientists were wrong about the earth being flat” and, eventually, “there are no facts.”
Yes, maybe when I walk out the door I’ll fly away. Maybe. Who knows? Prove it can’t happen— and cite your source!
You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.
You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.
By this scenario, intentionally misinterpreting and belittling people is the way we achieve consensus. Do you really believe that?
unenlightenedAugust 09, 2023 at 16:10#8287130 likes
Reply to frank Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.
Yes. We do not discuss flat Earth theory, because it is nonsense, and would prevent us from having sensible conversations. The climate 'debate' is as over as the flat Earth debate, and the smoking/lung cancer connection debate. To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.
So how about just walk away? Why mistreat the person? Walking away has the benefit of leaving the door open, should he change his mind and decide you're right. Attacking him just leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all who witness your abuse.
To give the impression that it is not over will cost lives, and slow down efforts at mitigation.
In this case, the person we're talking about has not given the impression that climate change won't cost lives. He hasn't denied climate change.
Can we let that sink in for a moment? He hasn't denied climate change. If you think he has, then you've bought into the words of a bully.
What he has done is express the belief that there isn't any way to stop it. A lot of people feel that way, and they have good reasons for it. If you feel that skepticism about avoidance is unworthy of consideration, then you'll have to exclude the IPCC from your sensible conversations, because they have now shifted to looking at the prospects for adaptation in the various global zones they consider. I linked the link earlier.
I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. If you came into that community demanding that people reconsider this, they wouldn't attack you as a naive fool. They would just smile. But if one of them did decide to attack you, I would stand up for you and demand that they treat you civilly.
That's all I'm doing here.
unenlightenedAugust 09, 2023 at 17:58#8287630 likes
You walk away if you want to, but I haven't entirely given up on you. And I haven't given up on the topic either. A lot of people are going to die, more than a few already have died, and a lot of environments are going to die, but we can go on making things worse, or we can start trying to make things less awful. I'm for doing the latter, even if it means being a little bit harsh with people who pretend to a knowledge they do not have.
You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? From 'its not happening', to 'it's not that bad', to 'there's nothing to be done', to 'it's always happened', to 'it might get colder soon', to 'seasonal change is greater than climate warming' . I mean, really, what is that last one for shit posting? You want us to discuss why that is problematic?
You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally?
I hadn't heard that term before. You're saying it includes people who accept climate change, but don't think there's anything we can do about it? And anyone who expresses that view is shitposting?
This conversation has made me sad. I'll probably not respond further.
Reply to frank That's not any clearer. What challenges specifically Mr "I'm in a vague, no-name science and technology group but I cannot get beyond hand waving at problems and whining about tone"?
Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.
Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average.
I am a strong believer in evolution. I have used that belief to try and understand how dangerous global warming is.
Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya.
- the average daily low for Kenya's coldest month is 14.7 degrees Celsius
- the average yearly temperature for Kenya is 21.5 degrees Celsius
- the average daily high for Kenya's hottest month is 29.1 degrees Celsius
So Kenya's temperature range is 14.4 degrees Celsius, and the temperature normally varies from warm to quite hot.
Humans evolved in a hot country. Many humans then migrated to other counties, some of them being considerably colder than Kenya.
This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold.
This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold.
I’m not going to simply refute stupid claim after stupid claim. You’re changing the subject — again. If you want to continue, respond to what’s been said so far and stay on topic. Otherwise, I’m not interested in your particular brand of climate denial.
Just a little review of this latest round of climate denial from the person who’s only recently joined the forum and is singularly interested in spreading nonsense about this one issue:
Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc.
I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. And many of the proposed solutions will actually make things worse.
(Never talks about why other than it’s cold in sone places and that India and China have a lot of cows so, you know, “good luck with that”. Solid argument.)
(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings")
Reply to frank Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious?
unenlightenedAugust 10, 2023 at 10:45#8290760 likes
The cost of winning an argument is that now they hate you because you made them lose.
Some of us have this magical ability to change our minds when we find out we were wrong, and others just get angry. If only they could realise that it was them being wrong that made them lose...
Reply to unenlightened Quite so, except that his allusion to a "science and technology group" doesn't square with this being the problem he was thinking about.
unenlightenedAugust 10, 2023 at 11:12#8290840 likes
Reply to jorndoe
Somebody keeps making these kinds of news blurbs about Florida and then they're picked up. I've fallen for it too. In this case, if you look closer, you'll see that the PragerU videos that are allowed for young children are the ones that explain how the US government works. Their stuff does have a conservative bias, but nothing unholy.
The news in this case is that someone was concerned that this opens the door to the use of climate change denial stuff (not climate-denial, there's no such thing. :lol: )
Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious?
I haven't argued that climate change can't be addressed. I was simply explaining that this view is common, and that there are discussion groups where the general consensus is that we won't be able to avoid the worse case scenario.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything. You're free to believe what you like as far as I'm concerned. :up:
Their stuff does have a conservative bias, but nothing unholy.
Well, the top paragraph of the Guardian story @jorndoe posted:
Videos that compare climate activists to Nazis, portray solar and wind energy as environmentally ruinous and claim that current global heating is part of natural long-term cycles will be made available to young schoolchildren in Florida, after the state approved their use in its public school curriculum.
Story goes on to note:
Despite its name, Prager is not an academic institution and does not confer degrees. It is a rightwing advocacy group founded in 2009 that produces various materials, including magazines and videos, that have been criticized by experts for inaccurate portrayals of slavery and racism in the US. According to McCarthy, each of the animated PragerU videos costs $25,000 to produce.
The group, which has received substantial funding from Dan and Farris Wilks, two brothers who are petroleum industry businessmen, has also been accused of spreading denial of climate science.
Florida, whose governor Ron DeSantis has called climate change “leftwing stuff”, is the first state to adopt PragerU videos, although in several other states textbooks pushed by the fossil fuel industry have included references that either downplay or deny human-caused global heating.
I don't know if 'unholy' is the right word - maybe it's not strong enough. 'Fallacious right-wing propaganda' might be more suitable.
The Conservative identification of the science of climate change with left-wing politics is extremely unfortunate, as it is, of course, complete bullshit. The most activist early climate-change politician was none other than Margeret Thatcher, who said in a speech to the United Nations in 1989
[quote=Margeret Thatcher; https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817]We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[/quote]
Left-wing stuff, eh? Thatcher was, before entering politics, a scientist, and as a consequence of her advocacy, the UK is ahead of the US on climate issue, as it has more bi-partisan support there (which is not to say that they don't have a very hard road ahead to meet their targets or that the fossil fuel industry does not still have a lot of influence there.)
It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. So yes, it's a distinct possibility. The evidence supports it.
Yes, but if it happens it is global warming causing local cooling. Global warming may also cause more extreme weather; colder minimums and warmer maximums, but overall it is still global warming.
(I haven't read the subsequent thread, so if someone has already pointed this out...take it as emphasis).
If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives.
@Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed. There isn't much that can be done for or with the invincibly misinformed, the invincibly ignorant, the invincibly stupid, etc. Every member of TPF, one by one, can beat him or her over the head with the facts, but the invincible are... invincible. So, move on; leave the close-minded sons of bitches alone.
@Agree to Disagree may want to plug up the conduit of consensus. I don't know why. However, some resistance can actually help solidify consensus.
We aren't in a very good position to change the policies of the extensive fossil fuel industry, it's outright owners or stockholders, invested banks, mutual funds, and private equity companies. Were TPF to be a $500B fund with lots of fossil fuel stocks, our consensus might disturb Exxon Mobil.
It isn't that we are completely powerless (and I definitely don't want to discuss how close to powerlessness we might be) so there are some things we can do on a personal level: recycling, eating a vegetarian diet, buying less, traveling less, consuming less--but BEING more. These are all pieces of a civic spiritual discipline.
We can try to influence those around us to take climate change (global heating) seriously. We can agitate, irritate, and aggravate do-nothing officials. We can vote when and if a candidate is available who might make a difference. We can engage in any suitable anti-corporate protest that might be available.
It's at least disgusting when some nattering nabob of negativity very reliably pipes up with "That won't do any good!" "It won't work!" "If one march doesn't lead to victory, why bother?" Etc.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 11, 2023 at 08:03#8294440 likes
It's at least disgusting when some nattering nabob of negativity very reliably pipes up with "That won't do any good!" "It won't work!" "If one march doesn't lead to victory, why bother?" Etc.
I think it's important to point out things that won't work because resources, time and political capital is limited. If we bet on and invest in things that won't work, that means there is less for things that do work.
To give an example. Germany invested a lot in renewables, more than most other countries, decommissioned its nuclear plants, and counted on natural gas power plants as a back up for unavoidable down periods that are the consequence of relying on renewables. Then when natural gas prices spiked just before Putin invaded Ukraine (which was probably the reason Putin thought it a good idea to invade at the time) Germany found itself in a lot of trouble... and actually had to revert back to coal power plants, which are many times worse than other fossil fuels for climate change.
A lot of ideas are just bad ideas. Most ideas are in fact bad, because the world is a complex place, and ideas are easy to come by. The whole green energy transition as conceived is a bad idea, because of it's reliance on renewables prodominately. I don't want to defend Agree to disagree, his arguments are just poor and he seems to be disingenious, but I think there's also a real danger of being pressured into going along with proposed solutions that will not work, just because you are thereby percieved to be opposing the ones that want to solve the climate crisis, i.e. "the good guys".
Reply to ChatteringMonkey
When it comes to massive efforts, what we're really good at is war. Society is reorganized top to bottom to find the way to survive. The population gives over easily to dictatorship, almost instinctively. Now it doesn't matter if people poo poo the effort. We've become a giant, intelligent, highly aggressive organism willing to sacrifice to achieve goals.
I think it would be in conditions like that that we would reorganize ourselves with a different energy source.
ChatteringMonkeyAugust 11, 2023 at 08:49#8294500 likes
Reply to frank At this point there is a disconnect between what would be needed to solve climate change and the ecological crisis more generally, and societal goals. Societal goals aren't actually aligned to solving these problems, but more aligned to economic growth, increase in GDP, or something along those lines... It's more like two ships passing in the night at this moment.
What could change it, is some type of crisis, like we saw at the start of WOII, when the US mobilised in a very short time. That's why I think it's very difficult to see a clear path to a solution at this particular moment.... but you know, things can change quickly.
That's why I think it's very difficult to see a clear path to a solution at this particular moment.... but you know, things can change quickly.
I agree. Also, philosophically speaking it's a case of Kierkegaard's sickness until death, which is that we can't carry certain aspects of who we are into this new world we imagine. We have to die to change, and it's hard to let go. A crisis would take that part of it out of the equation.
Yes, but if it happens it is global warming causing local cooling. Global warming may also cause more extreme weather; colder minimums and warmer maximums, but overall it is still global warming.
Yes. It would warm back up when it's over. It would be a local extinction level event for Europe.
Reply to ChatteringMonkeyReply to frank At the time, 2011, it seemed like a big mistake to shut down Germany's nuclear generators. Granted, Fukushima was a major disaster, but Germany doesn't seem prone to severe earthquakes and tsunamis. Solar and wind w/o a reliable third generating source (and not coal/gas) are insufficient.
At this point there is a disconnect between what would be needed to solve climate change and the ecological crisis more generally, and societal goals.
You hit the nail on its head. Full employment, continual GDP growth, new production, and all that are the national policy--the environment be damned. Unfortunately, a radical response to the ecological and economic crisis of global warming could bring about an economic disaster on its own. Carbon neutrality by 2035, '45, '55, '65--pick a date--would require so wrenching a change in society--one so severe that the outcome would be unacceptable. Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out.
philosophically speaking it's a case of Kierkegaard's sickness until death, which is that we can't carry certain aspects of who we are into this new world we imagine. We have to die to change, and it's hard to let go. A crisis would take that part of it out of the equation.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste", but if global heating isn't a sufficient crisis what did you have in mind? Something spectacularly bad but which we still survive...
Indeed, it is hard to let go of "this world" and die into a different one. I haven't become a vegetarian yet, which is NOT the toughest thing in the world to do.
Never let a good crisis go to waste", but if global heating isn't a sufficient crisis what did you have in mind? Something spectacularly bad but which we still survive...
I'm drawing a blank on what kind of crisis would do it.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 11, 2023 at 20:16#8296010 likes
Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out.
I totally agree with this statement.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 11, 2023 at 20:29#8296060 likes
Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed.
Do you mean that I don't believe the same as you?
Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence?
One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.
I always try to listen to both sides and think about what everybody says.
One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.
Factual matters (like gravity) don't have two sides. A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other". Some pairs of political ideas are mutually exclusive -- like dictatorship and democracy.
In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt.
I'm not at all sure we WILL stop global warming, but given that it is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuel) it CAN be stopped--provided we get on with the task in a very forthright manner.
If global warming were something caused by a natural solar cycle of some kind, for instance, we would not be able to do anything about it. But that isn't the case.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 01:05#8296770 likes
Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence?
Your “evidence” like “all these countries have many cows, so good luck with that’s methane problem” (your first example).
Don’t try to blame everyone else for your climate denial, ignorant stamens and weak “evidence” — which was refuted systematically by those who actually know something about the topic.
As in most cases where those with nothing left to say and no knowledge — or real wisdom — to impart, the latest climate denier has been reduced to platitudes about “both sides listening to each other” and other such sanctimonious vapidity. How pathetic.
One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.
No, the main problem is that unequivocal evidence is being obfuscated by those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. They spread a lot of misinformation through social and other media which is then repeated by others for their own reasons.
There are many topics for debate and discussion around climate change - political, technological and social implications and solutions for example - but the basic facts of the phenomena are not up for debate.
A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other".
— BC
If a creationist and a scientist can manage to talk to each other in a respectful way then it is possible that progress can be made.
Again there are not ‘two sides to the story’. The only progress in that scenario would be the abandonment of creationism, any other outcome would be regressive.
Later on I’ll find some of the current stories about efforts to mitigate climate change, of which there are many. For example https://wapo.st/3qj9DAh
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 02:33#8296910 likes
There are many topics for debate and discussion around climate change - political, technological and social implications and solutions for example - but the basic facts of the phenomena are not up for debate.
I don't dispute that climate change is happening. I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective.
I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected actual temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth.
After quality control I ended up with data for just over 24,000 locations on the earth. For each location the data includes:
- yearly and monthly average temperatures
- yearly and monthly average high temperatures
- yearly and monthly average low temperatures
I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average low temperature of the coldest month, and the average high temperature of the hottest month, for each country.
I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country.
Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus?
Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you?
No. You sound like a very well-informed climate change denier. However I have so far no reason to accept these claims as factual, beyond your assurances.
Reply to jorndoe Well a good chunk of Florida is gonna be underwater at this rate so there's that.
That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.
Reply to Agree to DisagreeReply to Quixodian Soil is a natural carbon sink, but it doesn't capture and hold carbon just by existing, Plants put the carbon into the soil. Regenerative (rather than extractive) land management can increase the amount of carbon sequestered.
BMJ - UK:With regenerative agriculture the percentage can increase to between 5 and 8% over 10 to 20 years, by which time the soil will become carbon replete. According to them, each percentage increase represents 8.5 tons of carbon sequestered per acre: so between 25 and 60 tons per acre over 10 -20 years.
John Deere Co. recently retired one of its oldest plow models--the kind that turns the soil over. A lot of crop farmers have switched to minimum tillage agriculture, and rather than plows, chisels are used to create a narrow furrow, without disturbing the soil on either side. Planters are designed to create a little hole in the furrow into which the seed is inserted. Again, less disturbance of the soil.
Regenerative farming is far less capital intensive than trying to extract carbon mechanically or chemically from the atmosphere and then storing it deep underground in old oil wells.
Building with wood rather than concrete is another way to sequester carbon. By using cultivated forest products made into engineered wooden beams and plywood, the structure can store carbon.
Here is a 25 story wood-frame bldg. in Milwaukee. WI. Posts, beams, and other structural parts are made with many cross-laminated layers of wood which are very strong. They are also fire resistant.
Fast growing trees are another carbon sequester. Poplars and Cottonwoods grow quite fast and can be used in various wood products.
Reply to BC Aussie tech giant Atlassian has unveiled plans for a multi-story timber HQ in Sydney https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/atlassian-central/36458
I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective.
Reply to Quixodian This office / residential building in Norway is mostly wood -- all vertical and horizontal loads are carried by wood structures. There may be some diagonal bracing using steel; lots of metal fasteners; exteriors on wood buildings may not be wood, owing to harsh weather. Wood has lots of advantages, and some disadvantages. 1) because it is light weight, it offers less resistance to forces acting on the building. So, heavy wooden pieces need to be used in tall structures. 2) wood is not completely moisture resistant. Miami might not be a good place to use wood for high rises. 3). repair can be difficult
How the laminated pieces will hold up over 100 years... I don't know. Probably pretty well, assuming the building is consistently maintained. There are 60 to 80 year old buildings with laminated supports that are doing fine.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 05:14#8297090 likes
Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus?
My data has not been peer reviewed or published (except on my website which no longer exists). I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
Anybody can look at my data and see if it is reasonable and makes sense. Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb.
As I said before, I grouped the data into 216 countries. I would have liked to also group it into the 50 states of America but it was already a huge task grouping it into 216 countries. Just within the last few days I have found data for the states of America on Wikipedia. I am about to analyse this data to see if it is consistent with my analysis of the 216 countries. If you are interested then I can post some results on this discussion. Anybody will be able check my results using the data on Wikipedia.
I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
Typical conspiracy theorist thinking.
You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science.
I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
— Agree to Disagree
Typical conspiracy theorist thinking.
Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have been called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 10:08#8297390 likes
Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came alon
— Agree to Disagree
That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy.
[quote=The Conversation;https://theconversation.com/from-newton-to-einstein-the-origins-of-general-relativity-50013]In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth's gravity. Einstein's interpretation was that these objects do not fall. According to Einstein, these objects and Earth just freely move in a curved spacetime and this curvature is induced by mass and energy of these objects.
The equations that he presented in 1915 not only led to a completely different interpretation of events around us but also ...[/quote]
Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening.
It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. So calling the science into question doesn't help to do that, other than from serious scientists who have constructive criticisms. And there are many vested interests who do have a climate-change denial agenda, so it is hardly surprising that the appearance of such claims provokes strong emotions. There is much at stake.
And while you say you agree that it happens, you also call the science into question:
[quote=Agree to Disagree]"Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly" (x2)
"Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth? ... It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures."
"Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies"
"Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year"
"are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.
How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?"
"I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. ....There are many other important problems that also need our attention"[/quote]
I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. First, you only ever post in this topic, second, with the sole purpose of questioning the science. I think it's an example of the motte-and-baily fallacy. This occurs when someone advances a controversial claim—one that's difficult to defend—and when challenged retreats to an uncontroversial claim. The bold claim is the bailey, the safe claim the motte. Here, your 'safety position' is the agreement that climate change is occuring. The bailey claim is that the scientists have it all wrong, and that you know better. That is really the only thing you show any interest in discussing.
This is a philosophy forum, on which there happens to be a thread discussing climate change. If you really want to call the science into question, then why don't you join one of the many climate change discussion forums that do have the resources to check your data, which may, for all we know, be entirely spurious. The moderators have discussed your posts, and while we're in agreement that you're in the wrong, you're not as yet breaching the terms of service, although at least one mod believes that if you have joined for the sole purpose of propogating your climate-change views, that you might have done so.
In any case, and as far as I'm concerned, you are not welcome to use this platform to disseminate your spurious opinions, and I am not going to respond to your claims henceforth.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 10:28#8297430 likes
You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science.
Scientific people, and scientists, should be skeptical. They shouldn't just accept everything that they are told.
Whenever I am told something I immediately try to think of a way that I can prove that it is incorrect. Like falsifiability. I tend to question everything.
unenlightenedAugust 12, 2023 at 10:33#8297440 likes
Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change.
Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?
My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?
If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 10:49#8297470 likes
It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation.
But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude.
But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude.
Neither will it be solved by doing nothing. Humanity should be trying every reasonable approach consistent with good ecological practice to counteract what it knows to be contributing factors to climate change. It may well be that some types of remediation are more effective than others. That's why they need to be tried. Now is not the time for quietism. The will to effect change is essential. As solutions are tried our understanding of the mechanics of the problem will grow, leading to new, better solutions. That's how it works.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 11:41#8297550 likes
Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?
My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?
If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it?
The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%.
You are correct, I do have some age on me. And I have a very good memory. I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. I can remember being in a lecture theatre and thinking "I will worry about an Ice Age if it happens".
I have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- fear of the Y2K bug (I was given the job of checking the software of the company that I worked for)
- fear of the impending ice age
- fear of Halley's comet
- fears about the Large Hadron Collider
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- etc
This is probably what made me initially skeptical about global warming (before it became climate change). However, I changed my mind and accepted that global warming/climate change is happening.
I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc).
The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%.
I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? As it turns out, there's another problem with American beef. They feed them corn, which makes American beef unusually fatty. It tastes good but it contributes to obesity, heart disease, and strokes. If they just stopped feeding them corn, Americans would be healthier, and not just slightly healthier, a lot more.
If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. Or stop it altogether?
have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
So you have literally never known a world that didn't have doom hanging over it. Does that mean you had to get comfortable with doom? How did you deal with that?
I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc).
Was acid rain abd ozone depletion also part of it? I read that there was overlap with those things and an amplified greenhouse effect. Same scientists?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 12:23#8297640 likes
I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions?
Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle
Here is a quote from the article
Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.
Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).
But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.
Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Mmm, I don't think so. Most people don't know the US government once did a massive study on cow farts to determine it's environmental effects.
But it's not true that their farts are absorbed by plants. Methane is lighter than air, so it travels from their butts straight up to the stratosphere.
I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out.
— Agree to Disagree
:lol:
I think that’s climate denial bingo.
No, that's you not knowing anything about history.
If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. It stop it altogether?
The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is another article which explains some of the positive aspects of cattle farming:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
Here are some quotes from the article:
Inedible feed to edible protein
The feedlot sector increasingly uses by-products that humans can’t eat, while still meeting the nutritional requirements of cattle. Examples include spent grain from bio-alcohol, feed-grade grain and cottonseed.
Grass-fed cattle (that may eat very small amounts of grain) produce almost 1600 times the human-edible protein they consume. Cattle that graze only on grass or hay their whole lives don’t eat any human-edible protein at all. Their net protein contribution to the human nutritional supply is so high it's literally off the scale.
Not competing for land
Part of the efficiency equation for Australian beef is that cattle mainly graze on land we can’t grow crops on. This is because of its terrain or soil type. In fact, Australian Bureau of Statistics' land use data show that since 2010 less than four per cent of Australia's agricultural land is used for growing crops.
A cow needs to eat around 25 kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of beef. But us humans can eat none or only some of that 25 kilograms. So in terms of human-edible protein – one kilogram in and 1.96 kilograms out – the perspective looks quite different.
All up our work suggests that cows can be a good use of agricultural land for contributing valuable protein to our food supply.
It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject
Yes, I know that most of the methane is from "burping". Frank said "the cow fart angle" and I just used the same name to avoid more explanation. Most people jokingly call it the cow fart problem.
So you also know that the “coming ice age” you mentioned in your list of doom hysteria — not-so-subtly implying that climate change is (could be?) hysteria as well — is utter bullshit? Basically taken from one Newsweek article that did not once suggest this was a consensus among scientists anywhere CLOSE to AGW?
Reply to MikieI remember a meteorologist I knew was asked by a reporter that as he believed that a new ice age was coming and then there global warming (called that then), wouldn't they counter each other? His response: New ice age comes in the next 50 000 years, climate change happening now.
But that was decades ago.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 13:24#8297960 likes
So you have literally never known a world that didn't have doom hanging over it. Does that mean you had to get comfortable with doom? How did you deal with that?
Yes, I think that there has always been some level of doom hanging around for most of my life (I am now in my 60's). You don't really ever get totally comfortable with doom (because there is always a small chance that it might happen). My normal strategy is to ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. This explains why I was initially very skeptical about global warming.
Right. I've read about that, but you lived through it?
Was acid rain abd ozone depletion also part of it? I read that there was overlap with those things and an amplified greenhouse effect. Same scientists?
Yes, I lived through the fear of an impending ice age. I also lived through the fear of acid rain and the fear of ozone depletion. My memory is good but these doom issues were somewhere between 30 and 45 years ago. My recollection of the timing of the different issues is a bit fuzzy.
Yes, I think that there has always been some level of doom hanging around for most of my life (I am now in my 60's). You don't really ever get totally comfortable with doom (because there is always a small chance that it might happen). My normal strategy is to ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. This explains why I was initially very skeptical about global warming.
I'm guessing you'd have to buffer all that doom somehow: keep it at arms length to plan for your own future.
Yes, I lived through the fear of an impending ice age.
I was reading some science fiction short stories and there was one where these people are struggling to survive the onset of an ice age, but then the protagonist wakes up and global warming is what's really happening. It was supposed to be about the psychological whiplash related to ice-age to global-warming news.
Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle
Right. Yet that won’t stop ignoramuses from discussing it at length. “Scientists were screaming we were all gonna freeze to death in 10 years!”
It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic— and dangerous.
Here is a graph from the NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3139/six-questions-to-help-you-understand-the-6th-warmest-year-on-record
It shows a graph of the temperature anomaly versus the year for a number of temperature series (NASA Gistemp, HadcrutV5, NOAA, and Berkeley Earth). They all agree with each other.
Note the sudden change in temperature trend at about 1940. It changed suddenly from an increasing temperature trend to a decreasing temperature trend. The decreasing temperature trend went from about 1940 to about 1970 or 1975 (a 30 to 35 year trend). Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.
In a previous post I said that I remember the scare being in 1976 (my first year at university).
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 12, 2023 at 14:06#8298170 likes
Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.
In a previous post I said that I remember the scare being in 1976 (my first year at university).
I think that's because it was in the 1970s that historic geography took off. In the early 20th Century, they thought there had only been four ice ages based on what they saw in rock formations. By the 1970s they started understanding continental drift and seeing much further back. It was from analyzing the graphs of temperature undulations that they reasoned that an ice age was coming soon. They still didn't know what causes ice ages, though, so there was a lot of uncertainty.
I was reading some science fiction short stories and there was one where these people are struggling to survive the onset of an ice age, but then the protagonist wakes up and global warming is what's really happening. It was supposed to be about the psychological whiplash related to ice-age to global-warming news.
You may be thinking about this episode of Twilight Zone
Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.
Care you cite some articles?
Most scientists, even back then, were far more concerned about global warming — the effects of which were known and understood decades prior.
The consensus was hardly suggesting an ice age was imminent. There was speculation, among some scientists, about the cooling effect of aerosols. That’s all it was.
Odd that you don’t remember the warnings about global warming from back then. Talk about selective memory.
Why don't you comment on what they say, rather than who they are?
Because it’s cherry picked nonsense, of the Bjorn Lomborg variety.
—
So it’s just worth summarizing/repeating: Climate change is happening, and rapidly. We’re the cause. It’s an existential threat. The solutions are available; the obstacles are time and political will.
Delivery vans in Pittsburgh. Buses in Milwaukee. Cranes loading freight at the Port of Los Angeles. Every municipal building in Houston. All are powered by electricity derived from the sun, wind or other sources of clean energy.
Across the country, a profound shift is taking place that is nearly invisible to most Americans. The nation that burned coal, oil and gas for more than a century to become the richest economy on the planet, as well as historically the most polluting, is rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels.
A similar energy transition is already well underway in Europe and elsewhere. But the United States is catching up, and globally, change is happening at a pace that is surprising even the experts who track it closely.
Wind and solar power are breaking records, and renewables are now expected to overtake coal by 2025 as the world’s largest source of electricity. Automakers have made electric vehicles central to their business strategies and are openly talking about an expiration date on the internal combustion engine. Heating, cooling, cooking and some manufacturing are going electric.
And in spite of all of the concerted efforts to block it.
Odd that you don’t remember the warnings about global warming from back then. Talk about selective memory
I'll answer this. There were so many other things happening during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it must have slipped right past me. I do remember the oil embargo. Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious.
Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious.
I did mention a speech by Margeret Thatcher to the UN in 1989, warning of the looming issue of greenhouse gases, as it was mainly called then. NASA scientist James Hansen provided an urgent warning to the US Senate in 1988, which largely went unheeded.
I'll answer this. There were so many other things happening during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it must have slipped right past me. I do remember the oil embargo. Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious.
Back then we experienced with our unbelieving eyes the first dog in space, the exploration of the planets, and man leaving footprints on the Moon. Yet the exploration of the oceans and of Earth beneath our feet is still incomplete to this day.
Much of what we think we know of past ice ages comes from three deep ice core samples drilled out of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice cap. This was done to explore the geological and biological archeology of Earth, including the timescale of past ice ages.
What was seen is shocking indeed. According to the record, we appear to be living in a relatively short-period warming of a long-lasting ice age. As long as there are ice caps over the poles we could claim to be in an ice age. Or not.
Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.
recalls was quite real back then. The fear was that our balmy existence could quickly, say in a decade, revert back to its normal frozen ways except for wide swath of equatorial belt.
Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious.
Here’s a reference:
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.
Reply to Mikie Yes, read that! I was about to post it. Here's some of the key text:
The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state’s environment and the young plaintiffs by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said.
“This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy and for our climate,” said Julia Olson, the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case. “More rulings like this will certainly come.”
The sweeping win, one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court, could energize the environmental movement and usher in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change, experts say.
The ruling — which invalidates the provision blocking climate considerations — also represents a rare victory for climate activists who have tried to use the courts to push back against government policies and industrial activities they say are harming the planet. In this case, it involved 16 young Montanans, ranging in age from 5 to 22, who brought the nation’s first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial. Those youths are elated by the decision, according to Our Children’s Trust.
Ought to be a major stumbling block for Republican efforts to wind back climate change amelioration efforts in the very unlikely event that they win office.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 15, 2023 at 00:53#8304650 likes
Yes, read that! I was about to post it. Here's some of the key text:
Here are the parts of this news story that stand out to me:
The Montana attorney general’s office said the state would appeal, which would send the case to the state Supreme Court.
“This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial, ...”
The government, which was given one week to present its defense, rested after just one day and did not call its main expert witness, surprising many legal experts.
Why do you think the government rested after just one day and did not call its main expert witness ???
As an older person (in my 60's) why should I take personal responsibility for climate change? Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies.
This is your chance to convince me that I should personally do something about climate change. Or you can ask me questions. Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change.
Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change.
Would it be insulting to suggest that this seems a petulant response? None of this is a personal matter. How you feel about it is irrelevant, and whether 'young people blame others' is also irrelevant. Human induced climate change is a clear and present danger, and action needs to be taken to stop it. Hopefully this thread can continue to highlight more or less successul attempts to do that, and to discuss the issues involved in ameliorating climate change.
Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies.
Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change.
You mean the blatant climate denier who pretends to care/know anything about the subject -- and repeatedly says that nothing can be done about it -- won't do anything if he's insulted?! Oh no!
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed.
So Big Oil invented the term "carbon footprint" to try to trick me into taking personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce.
Thank you for "educating" me. Now I know that I don't need to take personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce. I can produce any amount of CO2 and not feel guilty about it. It is Big Oil's fault, not mine.
Now go shill for oil companies elsewhere— and take your climate denial with you.
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid.
I am not sure if I have fallen into a universe of recursive sarcasm.
I was being sarcastic when I said "It is Big Oil's fault, not mine".
Now I am not sure if you thought that my comment was sarcastic and you have given me a sarcastic reply, or if you thought that my comment was genuine and you have given me a genuine reply.
To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.
If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.
Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat (warning - this comment may be sarcastic).
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Underlying this is a conflict in how we imagine ourselves, as consumers or as citizens. Consumers define themselves by what they buy, own, watch – or don’t. Citizens see themselves as part of civil society, as actors in the political system (and by citizen I don’t mean people who hold citizenship status, but those who participate, as noncitizens often do quite powerfully). Too, even personal virtue is made more or less possible by the systems that surround us. If you have solar panels on your roof, it’s because there’s a market and manufacturers for solar and installers and maybe an arrangement with your power company to compensate you for energy you’re putting into the grid.
To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.
If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.
Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat.
I agree with you. I assume your point is that if the average person doesn't limit consumption, that makes your efforts to do so meaningless?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 15, 2023 at 04:55#8305490 likes
"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097
Interesting seeing that headline in the WSJ. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 15, 2023 at 10:49#8306300 likes
"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping."
I have been looking at temperature data for the USA on the internet. There is a lot of interesting information. For those who are open-minded enough to have a look, here is just one example (there are many more).
This webpage has data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For each state the webpage shows the state name, the element, the value, the date, the location, etc. Note that near the top of the page it says "August U.S. Release: Mon, 11 Sep 2023, 11:00 AM EDT". Ignoring the fact that "Mon, 11 Sep 2023" is in the future, we can assume that the data on this webpage is recent.
For each state have a look at the record maximum temperature and the date that it occurred on. To make things easier to understand there is a Wikipedia webpage showing the same data. The advantage of the Wikipedia webpage is that you can sort on any of the columns.
The table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 inhabited U.S. territories during the past two centuries, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.
Go to the table a little way down the page. Click on the "sort" control in the Date column for "Record high temperatures (the 3rd column in). Click on the "sort" control again to sort the dates into descending order.
Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature AFTER 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 20.
Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.
8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.
24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.
"Earth Just Had Its Hottest Month Ever. How Six Cities Are Coping."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097
Interesting seeing that headline in the WSJ. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.
8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.
24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.
What do people think that this data means?
The record hottest day in California was in Death Valley. The coldest in Alaska was -80 at Prospect Creek. Regardless of the authority of the source, how could this data possibly address global warming or even 'hottest month ever'?
Reply to Agree to Disagree Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/
I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 15, 2023 at 13:04#8306520 likes
Reply to Agree to Disagree Ah, yes, let's ignore the context of your previous posts and pretend you didn't mean what I thought you meant. Don't insult my intelligence.
I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?".
Right— says the guy who uses meat companies’ websites as an authority on methane emissions, blames young people for their “Carbon footprint,” defends oil companies as “just giving people what they demand,” and claims nothing can be done to stop climate change.
“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”
Don’t worry— I’m not arguing. I’m just asking questions.
Global warming isn't about extremes (but could be possible consequence in certain local situations) but global averages. So that data means zilch. Use this instead: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/
Both links are worth reading. For anyone truly interested in this topic, as you claim to be, doing so is the bare minimal.
Reply to MikieReply to Benkei
I just wanted to thank both of you for showing that you can engage someone without anyone being called a "buffoon" or anyone being told to "shut the fuck up." That's great!
“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”
I have taken 10 seconds and here is my answer.
The data that I showed people was presumably compiled by scientists (possibly climate scientists). All that I did was bring it to people's attention. So I am not deluding myself.
If you are surprised by the data that I pointed out then you should take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".
A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?".
Reply to Agree to Disagree You're pretending to be a statician and then come up with 2 datapoint per year per state that only relate a maximum and minimum temperature? :rofl:
From the website you used, here's the page you should be using: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series
“Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".
A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?".
:lol:
You cracked the case buddy.
The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” because they’re trying to fool people into getting scared about climate change, so that China, George Soros, and the UN can implement more controls and usher in the New World Order.
Thank you for educating us with your groundbreaking work, blowing the lid off the whole thing. I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 16, 2023 at 05:39#8309410 likes
Reply to Benkei I have never claimed to be a statistician, but I have done a number of mathematics and statistics courses at university. I am very proficient with Microsoft Excel and I normally use Excel for calculating statistics.
When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course.
It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 16, 2023 at 05:45#8309420 likes
When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course.
It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two.
It's the same website as yours. Please stop lying here or we'll take that as trolling. Stop pretending surprise, or lack of time - while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country, or, indeed, pretending you didn't know the data was there on the NOAA website or that there was an ice age scare in the 70s (there wasn't).
You don't understand the claims made by the IPCC and introduce irrelevant data and then become disingenuous with your "innocent" questions. You're reinforcing my earlier suspicion you're not here in good faith.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 16, 2023 at 11:54#8309820 likes
while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country
Why didn't you ask me where I got 216 countries from, rather than accuse me of lying.
As well as the 195 countries that you mentioned I also calculated data for these 28 locations
American Samoa (US), Anguilla (UK), Aruba (NL), Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands (UK), Channel Islands, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Curacao, Faroe Islands (Denmark), French Guiana, Gibraltar (UK), Greenland (Denmark), Guadeloupe, Isle of Man (UK), Macedonia, Martinique, Moyotte, New Caledonia (France), Northern Mariana Islands (US), Puerto Rico (US), Reunion, Saint Helena (UK), Swaziland, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), U. S. Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna (France)
I didn't have any data for these 7 locations
Andorra, Eswatini, Ivory Coast, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Palestine, Romania
Note that 195 + 28 - 7 = 216
I had to use the locations that were already in the raw data that I processed.
It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series.
You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. The min-max temps are not highlighted or front and centre, the data I shared is, so you purposefully picked other data for a reason. Considering the thread you mostly post in, it's not hard to guess why.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 16, 2023 at 12:20#8309870 likes
You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to.
Do you realise how many webpages there are on the NOAA website?
How can I be expected to know about all of them? I probably only know about less than 1% of them.
Reply to Agree to Disagree There's a structure to it that I figured out in 2 minutes following your link and I'm not even a native speaker. But yes, I'm sure you're "smart enough" to challenge climate science but "too dumb" to read. I call a big pile of stinking bullshit.
The commentary on this photo, dated 2015, was that it is a female who has to stay near to land to feed her young. As the pack ice that she would usually swim out and forage on has been radically depleted by (ahem) climate change there is insufficient food and she and her cubs are facing imminent death. One of many species threatened by climate change.
"It’s part of a newly-filed update to Duke’s 2022 integrated resource plan as the utility aims to comply with North Carolina’s emission mandates. That 2021 law requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. The law also calls for net-zero emissions by 2050."
Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm"
That is all irrelevant to your argument. To show that there is or there is no global warming you have to find data that is global not local, cover at least decades, and that also can be clearly interpreted convincingly to non-experts like us to strongly suggest one or the other alternative.
What could that be? London is too local, any specific maximum temperature reading is too prone to some special occurrence at that time and place. What can be used are the mean temperature reading taken globally by satellites and summarized graphically for non-mathematicians. Agencies with supercomputers like ECMWF or the NOAA do this. There are a number of historical global charts maintained just for discussions like ours.
All you have to do is find one great chart that supports your argument, whatever you say your argument may be.
One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023
Given that El Nino is kicking in, and that last January 2022 the vulcano Hunga-Tonga blasted water crystals all over the stratosphere, and most of all because humanity is FUBAR, there is little good to hope for here. I'm worried but not yet panicked.
That is all irrelevant to your argument. To show that there is or there is no global warming you have to find data that is global not local,
He has never argued against global warming. One of the moderators continuously responds as if he has made that argument, even though he has repeatedly explained that he does affirm global warming. It's just confusion coming from the moderators for reasons only they might know.
One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023
Exactly. But like most climate deniers, he’ll go on believing climate scientists are “hiding” things from the public.
“Look! This place hasn’t gotten that warm this year. Why wouldn’t climate scientists tell us this??”
It’s just so transparent it’s barely worth responding to seriously anymore. But I’m glad you did.
unenlightenedAugust 17, 2023 at 18:34#8313930 likes
I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N.
*Puts the tinfoil hat down again, gently.*
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 17, 2023 at 19:31#8314110 likes
Reply to frank
Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.
Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.
Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will.
I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N.
I think that point and others similar are reasons for doubt. Up to about 10 years ago I was uncommitted on global warming but the evidence kept piling on year after year until I gave in. Most importantly the Antarctic ice sheet was getting colder and thicker even after Greenland started melting. This plus that the Southern Hemisphere has longer and colder winters by a slight bit due to the Earth's orbit not being perfectly round. But sea levels and temperatures were rising globally and that was what I was watching for.
Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.
Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.
Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are normally acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will.
Gotcha. It's just that a pile-on has started a couple of times on the poor guy, and I just thought that was abusive and wrong. I found that just piping up from time to time kept the yen from devaluating. :razz:
And I understand that there probably are people of ill will roaming about. It's easy enough to sort it out.
One of the moderators continuously responds as if he has made that argument, even though he has repeatedly explained that he does affirm global warming. It's just confusion coming from the moderators for reasons only they might know.
Not true. I pointed out that he adopts the pose that acknowledges climate change BUT then says that climate science and scientists have gotten it all wrong, and that nothing can be done about it, along with irrelevant and preposterous arguments to the effect that more people die from cold than from heat, that not everywhere on the planet is hot, etc. Plainly intent on muddying the waters.
Meanwhile in the real world
[quote=CNN; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html]America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead.
“Global warming can be this huge, overwhelming, nebulous thing happening in the world and you feel like you’ve got no agency over it. You kind of know that you’re contributing to it in some way, but it’s really not clear or quantifiable,” said Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a report author.[/quote]
Not true. I pointed out that he adopts the pose that acknowledges climate change BUT then says that climate science and scientists have gotten it all wrong, and that nothing can be done about it, along with irrelevant and preposterous arguments to the effect that more people die from cold than from heat, that not everywhere on the planet is hot, etc. Plainly intent on muddying the waters.
You're agreeing that he acknowledges climate change. Whatever else he might think, none of it warrants abuse. Ban him if you don't like him. Don't engage in a pile on with nasty language. That's just unnecessary.
Comments (3959)
What I'm not wasting time on anymore is trying to move politicians and rich assholes to do what is necessary. The idea of global warming is finally landing but 20 years too late and the solutions are still non-solutions. Anything not embracing degrowth will fail.
Recognising the damage already done and also baked in, is not a "I can't do anything".
I repeat several times that it remains a moral imperative to do what we can, and also what we do now will have a large effect on how much damage we end up doing.
However, it is simply reality that we can not avoid severe damages, which have already happened. 85% reduction in animal biomass is incredible level of damage to life.
Quoting Xtrix
There's a few differences with these comparisons that may help elucidate my point.
The transatlantic slavery trade and American slavery was going on for hundreds of years before it was abolished (not to say slavery elsewhere or at other times was less bad, but just to focus on one particular sequence of events). There's already a large amount of damage and suffering that has been perpetrated, that obviously people against slavery recognised. The amount of suffering and social damage transatlantic slavery caused over hundreds of years is truly immense.
Certainly, for many against slavery, the "institution" seemed so powerful, the madness going on so long and the suffering so enormous that it would feel at times hopeless. And put yourself in the shoes of people who opposed slavery hundreds of years before it was eventually abolished.
And, here's the point, no matter how overwhelming the suffering is and the danger of that inspiring helplessness rather than action, simply denying the reality of the suffering of slavery doesn't help. Pretending that "slavery isn't so bad" to make the issue more emotionally approachable I think you would agree is not a good strategy for anti-slavery work.
The difference with climate change, is that we had the potential to avoid these damages.
So, a better analogy would be people who acted to try to avoid slavery, transatlantic or otherwise, starting in the first place, or avoid one of the various genocides.
Obviously they failed. Now, doesn't mean their actions were useless, or "hopeless" in the sense they should not have acted.
However, denying the scale of the horror once it happens is not useful either, and certainly has an emotional impact.
Policies were easily available to avoid severe consequences of climate change. The thing to do now is limit the damages, but it is simply reality to recognise the failure to avoid the entire disaster in the first place.
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something.
Quoting boethius
It seems to me that this gets "recognized" over and over again on this forum and in this thread. I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. The underlying message is: it's hopeless. I don't see how anyone can read these comments and not have that be the takeaway.
Quoting Benkei
I'm in favor of de-growth, but there's no reason to believe anything short of that will fail. Might as well make the claim that anything short of the destruction of capitalism will fail. Sure, if that's the case then it's very unlikely -- but we should fight for it still.
But it's really not the case. We've already brought projected emissions down a great deal. Attention and movements have begun to form, the next generation is very concerned, and people are now seeing and living with the effects of inaction as we speak. It's estimated that about 3% of US GDP a year would get us to where we need to be. That's hardly impossible.
Quoting boethius
The only ones denying the horrors of climate change are climate deniers.
I'm not claiming anything said is false, I'm questioning the emphasis. Yes, we should have acted -- yes, it's bad right now and will get worse -- yes, it's a very hard path ahead.
That being said, let's move on. Dwelling on it does no good, and in fact can have the opposite effect -- i.e., of retarding action.
Unfortunately our (human) nature got in the way - we drink until we pass out, we eat until we die of heart ailments, we drive past the speed limit and die in a collision, you get the idea.
Climate change in my humble opinion is nothing more than a manifestation of very human flaws.
Yeah no. I know this thread is about global warming but it's a bit idiotic to decouple it from what really is the point, which is extracting more than nature can sustain. So we might solve global warming of I'm very optimistic but that won't really solve anything.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint
By all mean do something. I am doing something too. As for things turning around quickly... I'll believe it when I see it.
Quoting Xtrix
Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions?
While I don't necessarily think science will solve everything, it's a better option than expecting everyone to suddenly come to a realization that they're destroying the environment and doing the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. We tried the latter for 40 years and that got us nowhere. People just aren't gonna make the necessary sacrifices because it involves them doing something inconvenient. It's why NIMBYism is a thing.
At least technological advances are immune to inconsistency of governments. If renewables and EVs are made more affordable and economically competitive (which fortunately it seems to be getting to in recent years) then it doesn't matter what kind of science denying buffoon the voters decide to elect into office. Businesses will decide to decarbonize of their own accord.
I'm ensuring for my kids as well, a way to escape the consequences, which in my view are inevitable.
I mean good luck with that, but there are a lot of people out there who are dead set on making sure that we don't do anything at all. At first the line was that climate change wasn't happening, so we shouldn't do anything at all. Then they accepted the existence of climate change but now deny that it was manmade, so again, let's do nothing at all. Now it's a combination of "renewables bad", "China should do something first", or "some climate people fly in private jets", all with the implication that we should, you guessed it, not do anything at all.
I mean, it'd be nice if all sides acknowledged the problem and just had differing approaches to solving it. In a world that made sense that would've been the case. I'd love it if both the right and the left had debates over whether we should decarbonize using nuclear or renewables for example. Unfortunately that isn't the world that we live in, and I don't know how much longer we all are gonna live in this world anyways if this is how we're gonna act.
Oh, if I had my way, I'd have climate denying politicians and one-percenters summarily executed for murder.
I completely reject that view of human beings. It's silly and simplistic, and for some reason chooses to elevate our vices and paint all of "human nature" by them.
Quoting Benkei
Destroying capitalism could likewise be thought of as "really the point." But I'm not interested in fantasies, I'm interested in real solutions to a real problem -- solutions we already have and, if there's sufficient popular pressure, can employ immediately. Renewable energy is sustainable. If we have to wait around for something much more drastic, then we're likely doomed.
But we don't. That's a long-term project, and a necessary one, but not at all a requirement for this particular issue. If you're convinced it is, fine -- that's your prerogative and I wouldn't try to dissuade you from acting accordingly. But I see little evidence for it.
Quoting Olivier5
Building strong unions, for one. In strategic industries, with strike-ready supermajorities. All that's required in that case is people talking to each other, finding common ground, and using a little empathy. And it's happening all across the US and the world, all the time. Since the corporations own the government (Joe Manchin a good example), the only way things change in time is if the corporations give the "OK," and that only happens if they're facing a real crisis. One way to create that crisis is workers walking off the job. With the energy industry, that's going to be hard -- but not impossible. Other industries can help as well -- Amazon, Apple, Starbucks. We're seeing unions pop up everywhere, against great odds. It's very exciting and inspiring indeed.
Otherwise I could give a rundown of possible governmental actions that would be very useful. But we have less control over those things. I suggest instead to focus on local energy commissions, city councils, budget commissions, town councils, local and regional utility companies, etc. Bring it to the state and local level, since the federal government has been crippled. I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well.
Doing things individually, like installing solar panels, heat pumps, electrifying one's home (stoves, water, etc) and buying other electric things (like lawnmowers) would be helpful too. All very cost effective. E-bikes are great if you live close to your job or supermarket. Electric cars are a good choice too, but still probably too expensive for people -- and we should be pushing more for public transit anyway.
Regarding unions:
--Reference
You'd think it was something out of the Onion after reading Graham's statement:
I think this further nails it:
Exactly. So no more outright denial -- just that we can't do anything about it, it's hopeless, China and India need to do more and so anything we do won't matter anyway, etc. Why put ourselves at a "disadvantage"? Why be the bigger person?
It's as good as outright denial. In both cases, the outcome is the same: do nothing. Keep drilling. What else justifies this? The "market," of course! Market fundamentalism. The wonderful market, that will automatically guide the world in the right direction. Whatever the market decides, that's the way forward. It's like consulting magic bones.
Like I've been saying, the "let's do nothing" crowd continues to say that we should do nothing at all.
Yes. Here's another doozy:
Not sure whether to laugh or cry.
We are living through the greatest tragic comedy of our time.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MrMatthewTodd/status/1548353724086530049[/tweet]
I see. What's your theory then about why we're in this mess, climate change and all?
https://www.eenews.net/articles/patrick-michaels-influential-climate-denier-dies-at-72/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-planet&utm_content=20220720&utm_term=The%20Weekly%20Planet%20-%20USA%20ONLY
Not supposed to cheer people’s deaths, of course, but when you think of how many people will suffer and die for one person’s stupidity and corruption, their passing is a deliverance.
Greed.
Quoting boethius
I don't agree that the less powerful could "easily unite" or easily "topple the elite". True, it has happened in the past, but not often. To a small extent, a move in that direction just happened in Sri Lanka (but only a couple of heads rolled -- the power elite is still intact there). It doesn't happen often because it is in fact very difficult for any large group to unite in solidarity around radical change and a plan's execution. It also doesn't happen often because the elite is well defended--not just by guns, but by propaganda machines.
Quoting boethius
You are quite right. It is irrelevant because the elites and the commoners, being the same species, are similarly endowed. We do not seem to be able to act on risks that are not immediate. We are not even good at recognizing and measuring risk. The momentum of the industrial revolution has driven the use of fossil fuel, and elites and commoners all welcomed the labor saving which coal, steam, oil, and gas (turned into on-line energy) made possible.
Life has been hard for us for most of our history, requiring enormous amounts of labor, much of it miserable and life-shortening. Science and technology have made life easier for many (not all, though).
If the James Webb cameras were to spot a large human-life-ending meteor heading in our direction, with arrival time about 30 years into the future and a 75% likelihood of a catastrophic impact, the world would not unite in laboring to build the device which would deflect the meteor. There would be bickering and dithering over plans, denial, contention, possibly major destabilization--possibly up until the rock arrived or barely missed us. Various people would definitely get blamed, no matter what. Why?
Why? Because we are not perfectly evolved primates. Yes, we do have lots of hard capabilities, but we also have lots of hard limitations. Maybe we can all agree that the James Webb Telescope is a marvel, but we have not all agreed that we should get vaccinated against Covid 19 (and other diseases); that we should wear masks in public; that we should stay home if we feel sick, and so on. Those are easy behavior changes.
:up:
Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas.
That's precisely what's needed and the fact you call it a fantasy is proof in the pudding that we will not resolve it on time. If even the optimists don't believe it will happen, then it certainly won't.
Quoting Xtrix
Wrong. Not at current energy use levels.
Most people here are reflecting an understanding of the issues as we had it 20 years ago.
What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average.
So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change...
You could also do a revolution and size power for the people and away from corporations. It's called a democracy.
:up: Most illuminating.
Uh oh! We're in thick soup!
All aimed at maintaining current wealth levels. Fuck cars and the idea that individual transportation should be a thing. Prohibit them in cities and large towns and invest in public transportation. Lawnmowers? You can mow by hand, which also require a lot less maintenance as they rarely break down. Heat pumps are useless in badly isolated houses. What are the Rc requirements in the US in Wisconsin for instance? Is there a maximum in energy use defined per square or cubic meter? Even in the Netherlands isolation helps more than installing heat pumps, which in any case should be coupled with solar panels to be effective.
But we haven't, so the problem doesn't seem to be with the idea. The problem seems to be with whatever is in the way.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, we haven't. So the idea doesn't seem to be the problem rather than whatever is in the way.
I doubt there's a single person in the Western world who doesn't know about climate change and what they ought to do to help. Yet they're not doing it. So knowing what to do to help clearly isn't the problem. People already know and are not doing it.
The problem runs far deeper than just consumer choices or unionism. It's about the people we've become.
Quoting Marcel Crok
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Grace__Coulter/status/1545566138330923009[/tweet]
Quoting Simon Rozendaal
Quoting Benny Peiser
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RadioGenova/status/1546586557909450753[/tweet]
This is actually pretty smart, and an antidote to what progressive kids from wealty or academical families tends to go on about, wanting working people to make their lives worse:
When you talk about our human nature, count me out. I just love lying in my bed reading stuff. Pandemics learned me to keep myself fit without any gyms and shite. I also work a lot from home and did not give my kids car rides to sport activities.
Be lazy, philosopize, read and watch the sunsets. That way you have a rich inner life and do not spend so much power.
The upper class kids, also those getting progressive and having environment things are really the driving force for the opposite. I’ve seen it plenty since i made the class journey from daytime work environments to a pretty area where all houses are nice. And getting to know a lot of people in the uni town I live in now - the class divider is all these life expectancies. Where I grew up noone really had any projects, plans for whatever. One was sorted into whatever one seemed to do well in and did it.
Where I live now all kids have all these projects. My own daughter claims to be an environmentist, leftist, everything ist but what did she do… go around the world, and she did not take the bicycle.
The gordian knot is to relax. And the guys that are born energetic can use that energy to invent smart solar cells, fusion power or whatever. We get happier and save the planet at the same time.
Pretty seriously.
Well, assuming you're not being sarcastic, the rule is rather simple: If anyone says "you're too blah blah blah" it's time to do a systems check!
Well, you're correct! There's a very good reason why the synonym for foreigners is aliens - we could as well be living on different planets, that's how different we are.
Yes, at current levels. The current problem is scale.
As the population grows and more energy — specifically, electricity and the materials needed to make solar panels, batteries, wires, etc.— is demanded, that will be a problem. No one is denying that.
That’s a different issue from lowering emissions, which is the driver of climate change— the issue at hand.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This says it all— yes indeed.
Quoting Benkei
But it isn’t. At least in my view. If I’m naive, and that’s truly what’s needed — then yes, we’re probably doomed. In that case we should immediately take up arms.
This is not my message.
You completely ignore the part where I explain my view that doing whatever we can, as effectively as we can, is a moral imperative, regardless of the likely outcome.
Furthermore, I made it clear I viewed extinction as highly unlikely and everything we do now has significant impact on where the environmental and social damage eventually plays out.
Which I'm sure on a "philosophical level" you agree with.
What you seem to take issue with is, again without disagreeing, my laying out the reality in blunt terms (as I see it).
The reality is simply that it's no longer 40 years ago where obvious, easy to implement policies (stop subsidising fossil, start internalising its true costs ... which society pays anyways a long list of, not just climate change!) could have easily avoided the current crisis.
It's not even 20 yeas ago when I got full time into working on climate change, where bold but feasible actions, again, would have avoided the current crisis.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, I agree we are only really debating emphasis.
Which, I gave my view on the "hope" question because I was asked specifically that.
However, to act effectively requires a clear understanding of the situation, this is where maybe there are genuine differences.
An optimal plan depends on the effective-time and resources-over-time available.
Decades ago, the actions required were obvious and there was time to implement the policies in a gradual way.
I would argue that is no longer the case, and we are in a much more urgent situation, and "exactly how urgent" does matter in the calculus of optimum strategy.
Quoting Olivier5
Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough.
Quoting Olivier5
That's why I mentioned strike-ready supermajorities. Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? If they do strike, but simply don't do so in the necessary industries for climate-related legislation, that too is a problem -- and one we have in the US as well.
Quoting Benkei
It has nothing to do with wealth. Maintaining the same standards of living, yes. Which, it's true, is excessive, wasteful, and overly comfortable in the US. That needs to change.
In the meantime, electrifying these things is good and will bring emissions down. They're not at all exhaustive.
Quoting Benkei
Yes. Congestion pricing and even increasing bike-paths is a step in this direction, but the best choice is investing in better public transportation.
Quoting Benkei
Good point -- I regret I didn't include it.
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, heat pumps aren't a panacea. They don't work in very areas that get very cold, and often you'll need fossil fuel back-up. But in warmer areas they work very well, and are becoming much less expensive and more efficient. A much better choice than oil and gas, even if for the immediate health benefits. But yes, for maximal impact they should be coupled with solar panels -- no doubt.
I'm emphasizing electrifying on the individual level because it will be much easy to decarbonize the electric grid down the road if we start now. Right now, of course, electricity is still mostly generated by natural gas/coal in the US (about 60%). Electricity, combined with transportation, accounts for more than half of all emissions. If you include some commercial and residential emissions (heating and cooling), then then you're over 60% of all emissions. That's mainly the focus, in my view.
Industry (steel, cement, etc) and agriculture are harder. I suppose consuming less meat, and consuming less generally, is a good idea for individuals.
Quoting Isaac
But we have. We're currently in the middle of a surge, in fact. At least in the US.
Regardless, I think the problem is often the very idea -- that's been beaten out of people's heads. Lots of propaganda against unions. It's also other obstacles -- like how difficult employers have made unionization.
Quoting Isaac
I'm really not seeing the point here. The fact that something hasn't happened (which is somewhat untrue) means that the problem is with the "idea"? Says who?
What's in the way could very much be the ideas. That seems to be the case, in fact. There are many other obstacles as well even after the ideas are accepted.
Quoting Isaac
What we've become is despairing, polarized, confused, and angry. That's not an accident. But yes, that's a situation to be overcome.
No, I took issue with the emphasis. It's not that you're wrong in what you point out, it's that it can be a preventative to much-needed action -- it encourages despair and apathy. I see a lot of this going on right now because of Manchin's obstruction, and I think it should be tempered.
Quoting boethius
:up:
This is the disagreement.
The reality is whatever it is and understanding it as best we can is essential (accounting for different perspectives, limitations of our senses and analysis and all that).
A really large amount of effort was spent in the 90s "softening the blow" to society realising this incredible threat and its danger.
Many in the environmental movement bought into this fossil fuel propaganda of making the message more palpable for people to process. The argument was that if people believed it wasn't so bad, no "alarmism" then A. scientists wouldn't be accused of alarmism and B. starting at least some actions would be easier.
However, the water-down-the-danger strategy simply resulted in Kyoto just being a completely ineffective thing, whatever it was.
This was mixed with a lot of corruption, such as creating monetary conflicts of interest for everyone involved including the environmental movement insofar as possible (aka. bribes), but "rational" people need to be able to rationalise their corruption, and the soften-the-blow strategy, people need to have a not-so-alarming message, was the essential mental mechanism to do that. People then quickly believe their own propaganda, that there really was more time, "a hundred years".
The scientists that refused and activists that refused to get onboard the softy-slowly-wobbly-train (basically an alliance with fossil fuels who were going to "invest" in green energy, beyond petroleum and all that) were then just pushed out of the media (due to insane levels of corruption there; journalism quality was way different in the 90s and the denialism industry had not yet really been created, as the strategy of the 70 - 80s was "we need more research" which accepts the rationalists framework, and so setup the "research is done to justify action" in the 90s, which there was not yet a network of just zany anti-rationalist, anti-science denialism).
The big environmental organisations got behind "biofuels" so that people wouldn't need to contemplate driving less, even though the science is clear that biofuels cannot possibly displace any significant amount of fossil fuels, competes with food and wilderness, and public transportation and in particular trains are the ecological transport solution (had USA started a high speed rail network in the 90s, it would be now reaping the same benefits China is now getting).
Now, what was the obvious truth back then?
The obvious truth is that even with the "rosy models" approach, the risks were still clearly insanely high. A political standard had been created (by the fossil industry) that 30% risk of total catastrophe (extreme climate change) was acceptable.
The non-corrupt scientists continued to point out that such a political standard was insane, biofuels a fools errand and not only delays effective actions but makes the problem worse by encouraging more car culture, that by the time we feel the consequences of climate change a large amount of damage will be locked in due to the momentum of the system as well as such effects will cause political and social costs and instability which makes effective actions even harder.
Most of all, the obvious truth the now marginalised scientists continued to explain, was that's it's completely insane to continue to not only ignore not only the climate costs but all the other costs to society of fossil fuel use (in particular cars) on health and ecosystems and just inefficiencies compared to public transport and intercity rail, but continue to subsidise fossil fuels and develop even dirtier fossil fuel extraction methods! and that the policy of stopping the subsidies and internalising even non-climate related costs is by definition a net benefit to society in itself (society is paying those costs through taxes and costly harms ... just not at the gas pump).
So, in short, the "don't be too alarming" play and its consequences has already played out before, fossil consumption went up like business as usual, the critical infrastructure projects that take decades to build didn't happen.
Now we're fucked.
That's the simple truth.
People need to accept that we're fucked (in my opinion) to start understanding and dealing with the situation.
The "it's not so bad, not so alarming, we have time" argument worked when things still seemed normal and we didn't feel any consequences.
The older generations went from being concerned, clearly an issue governments should sort out, another of a long list of frightening pollution issues that need to be solved ... to "I'll be dead by then!!" Older people absolutely loved saying this.
I remember hearing all my older extended family joking about this around the Christmas and thanks giving table etc. And I remember the burning anger and "they know not what they do; the fucking bastards" impression it gave.
The greatest trick the devil ever played, was convincing the baby boomers global warming didn't concern them as they'd be long dead before the disastrous impacts. Also something about markets and progress and whatever.
Now people feel the consequences, are extremely anxious about, wondering how we got here and where exactly here is.
They need to hear the truthful message: We. Are. Fucked.
As, that's what corresponds to their actual experience. People can sense that we're fucked.
What now? Yes, that's the followup question, but the followup question to accepting that we're fucked.
Global famine is here. I wrote (as many others) about that being a "big moment" of global destabilisation and we need to act before such things start to happen, to avoid being fucked, 20 years ago.
Analysis was correct then, correct now, and now that global famine is upon us the conclusion of such analysis, that we're fucked, also remains true.
Of course, actions can make us less rather than more fucked, and we should do what we can.
Sorry to burst your bubble. There's no way to move to renewables at current energy usage levels. Energy networks can deal with at most a 10-15% shift in energy production, anything beyond that and you get black outs. Renewables will cause much larger shifts and we don't have adequate battery technology to store the necessary energy to fill in the gaps. (That's not to say there aren't hopeful developments in this area).
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, standards of living, excuse my English but you understood what I meant. And not just the US, every country in Europe.
Well then problem solved. Good job... Cup of tea?
Quoting Xtrix
True. So remove the propaganda? But that seems obvious too, I'm sure activists have already thought of that. So why haven't they been able to. What's in the way?
Quoting Xtrix
No, the problem isn't with the idea (read my quote again). If everyone already knows the idea but isn't doing anything in accordance with it, then something else must be in the way. Just telling them the idea a second time clearly isn't going to do anything.
Everyone already knows about climate change. everyone already knows we should use electric cars, solar panels, less in general, go vegetarian, plant a tree... They just don't. So what's stopping them? Clearly it's not that they haven't been told what to do.
Natural gas being needed to "transition" to keep the grid stable (basically only hydro and gas can react to variations from renewable energy, and hydro is generally maxed out pretty much everywhere), as I've written about in previous posts.
However, the problem is actually even worse than even you describe above, since if you want to move from fossil to electric cars and trucks, now the grid needs to be expanded even more to power these systems.
Just an additional point to add to the de-growth requirement.
However, I don't think for Europe and US a voluntary de-growth is now feasible, but it will happen involuntarily. President of the EU telling member states to cut gas consumption by 15% is already manifestation of that process.
What is interesting to focus on is the other half of get people to a 1950's level, which means growing the economy for billions of poor people.
If that is done with renewable energy (the mythical leap frog), and in a profoundly different way to aping Western society (no cars, local living, local working, gardens, etc. which is easy to do in areas of the world that are still rural) then it could actually just keep going in terms of developing and surpass not only 1950's but even our Western standard of living.
For, if you had a truly renewable and local based economy with significant renewable energy access and highly educated, which costs little resources to share knowledge, using mostly solar, then you'd have pretty much all the benefits of Western technology without the downsides of pollution, urban anonymity, commuting, stupid jobs, homelessness, etc.
It would still consume way less resources and so be smaller if resource throughput is the measure of economy (or GDP essentially a proxy for resource throughput), but quality of life can be far higher than even middle class Western standards today.
Just tuning your heating system can get you these cuts, factory presets are generally wasteful. But nobody really knows that and installers know but don't take the time to do it. You'll have to separately make a 300 eur appointment for "hydronic balancing", which is actually easy and something your granny could do.
Then there's the ridiculous law in the Netherlands that requires potable water from heating systems to be heated to at least 60 degrees because of fear of legionellabacteria, while next door Germany happily heats it to only 50. That saves a ton too. So I broke a law as well.
Using less gas would be easy actually if people were made aware and supported with these kind of energy saving tips but I had to learn it from my dad for some weird ass reason. And he knew because he built refineries for a living.
And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize, or they would have started doing so a long time ago not to emperil the human race.
Quoting Xtrix
The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.
Not so sure about that. At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better.
Apparently Manchin was really buddy buddy with the coal miners, or at least trying to be, seeing as he's a coal baron and all. Kind of wonder how they feel about him now that he's shown himself to be playing games for the past year and a half over legislation that would've helped them transition to other jobs. Those coal jobs aren't coming back, and the coal industry in the US is dying, no matter who is in charge of the White House. They seem to understand that but I guess that's just Manchin looking out for his constituents.
The concerns of miners, as described in the article you posted, and the reasons why they support the BBB bill have nothing to see with climate change: they are naturally about pensions, healthcare and jobs. They are not going to go on strike to save the planet.
They're also not gonna furiously defend coal either like your last post implied. Like you said, they care about employment, and they're perfectly fine with clean jobs just so long as they have them, which was why they wanted the manufacturers creating new jobs in their coalfields.
Which is irrelevant.
Quoting Olivier5
There’s every reason to believe it in fact.
Quoting Isaac
That’s really not true.
Of those who do, I think the problem is powerlessness and hopelessness.
We need new transmission lines and power plants, yes. The grid needs updating to handle larger electric loads. What’s the point?
It doesn't happen because the all too visible hand of the wealthy rules, and automation has reached the point that the economic value of a peasant is now negative. Therefore it is the human population that is in line for recycling first, and then the green revolution will be much easier and will largely take care of itself.
I think it is the reason we are in this mess.
You mind giving us a few examples?
The Soylent Green revolution?
I think we could use hamsters to generate the 4000 volts necessary to smelt iron. We just to get them motivated. A motivational speaker maybe?
Really? I did caveat the claim with 'in the Western world'. Do I move in such restricted circles. I can't think of a single person I meet who would look at me with puzzlement if I asked what we ought do about climate change. If there are exceptions they're few and far between.
Quoting Xtrix
OK, interesting. Can you say more about what makes you think that?
Not tweaking— building new ones. Building new transmission lines as well. A major undertaking, but doable. (I’m talking here about electricity, by the way.) Plenty of information out there about this.
It’s far from missing the point — it is the point. At least the one I was making. If you’re talking about something else, fine.
Quoting Olivier5
I think so too.
Quoting Olivier5
Plenty of examples— but let’s be clear about what I’m saying: if the government is essentially controlled by corporate America, then the best chance we have of moving them is by getting corporate America to give the OK. That’ll only happen through public pressure, especially in the form of unions. There’s a lot of history worth reviewing from the 1930s, etc.
I’m not talking exclusively about fossil fuel companies. Although that’s a key industry, of course.
Where climate denial is rampant, as you know.
Quoting Isaac
Sure — I’ll respond later though.
Why would you say it's irrelevant, then? The US has been and remain the stumbling block to serious emission reductions. That's relevant. Your polity is fucked up, it's the best democracy money can buy. Corporations rule you. That's in essence why we're all doomed.
That's a little myopic. We have this problem because we started using fossil fuels. The problem isn't that we're gluttonous. It's not a problem with the northwestern hemisphere. It's a problem the human species will have for the rest of its time on Earth.
A technological shift put us here. That's what it will take to stop it.
What kind of reasonable solution were you thinking of?
It was your wording.
Because I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about solutions to climate change — which was what was asked for. Read it through again if you like.
The US’s responsibility in all this has nothing to do with available solutions, of which there are plenty. Whether they get implemented — yes indeed. But the question was about solutions.
Refresher:
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I stand by all of that, and am in fact involved in them.
Because the problem seems overwhelming, for one. But mostly because those in power seem immovable and remote— that this is just the way if things. It’s been beaten into our heads that we can’t change anything, that we’re alone, that we shouldn’t bother and look after ourselves— rugged individualism, natural law, human nature, etc.
All complete bullshit, sure. But if you ask people what they think can be done, you’ll get variations of this theme. It’s just feeling powerless. I see it when talking to workers too — they internalize the feeling that to ask for more is greedy and that they’re undeserving — and probably don’t understand the decisions being made anyway.
Denial is not the same as not knowing.
Quoting Xtrix
Has it? If I turn on the TV and flick to some current affairs, or chat show, or even a soap opera do you honestly think the message I'd be getting on climate change is "don't bother, you can't do anything, you're all alone"? It doesn't seem that way to me (I must admit thought I don't have a TV, but I do read the news - I'm extrapolating). It seems to me that the message about climate change and what we can do to help is literally everywhere. I'm not reading this fatalist, or nihilist message that you seem to think is everywhere beaten into people.
Or are you talking about a deeper psychological 'beating'? Kind of 'beaten into us by life'? If so then it seems that, if you want mass mobilisation, you need to fix that problem first otherwise no one will do anything no matter how much you wave your placard.
Alright, there does exist technical and economic solution, such as degrowth, or renewables, or nuclear power, or taxing fossil fuels prohibitively.
Now if only American politicians would care, they could try and apply these solutions and save civilization as we know it. That'd be nice. Any moment now....
Quoting Tate
Due to cost of catastrophic failures of several early design nuclear facilities that destroyed their surrounding communities for at least 50 years to come nuclear energy companies (the "corporations") have retrenched from developing safer more efficient facilities. If you ran one of those companies you would also be obliged to be sure to avoid another Chernobyl or Fukushima of your making. The savior fusion reactor research has so far proven to be too impractical and has fallen out of realistic consideration.
If whatever technology was ripe the "corporations" would jump at the opportunity to grab it.
Quoting Olivier5
As you all said, the "corporations" rule America.
According to the senator from West Virginia, whether or not civilization as we know it is saved solely depends on next month's CPI report.
I see what you mean, although China is presently the largest producer of CO2.
I don't believe the US has ever been in a position to solve the problem. It's a global, long-term problem.
Quoting Isaac
And the answer for many is “nothing, because it’s a hoax.” But somehow this counts as “knowing” about it? Then yes, everyone in the world has most likely heard the words “climate change.” Was that really your point?
Also, you didn’t mention simply “knowing,” you stated that everyone knows both about climate change and what we should do about climate change. That’s not the case in the West. Climate denial is rampant.
But keep arguing it, by all means.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Yes.
If you don’t see it, that’s OK.
That's what it means for a problem to be global; that no one group can solve it. As in a global pandemic, that could have been quickly halted by global cooperation to isolate and compensate, but only by every country working cooperatively to the same end. It didn't happen with that either. But to the extent that the US is the leading power, and the leading per capita producer of CO2, and a leading technological innovator, it does have the power to influence by example and encourage compliance with a strategy by economic means, and hugely contribute to the solution instead of hugely contributing to the failure to tackle the problem at all.
Yes. If people hear all about climate change and what they ought to do about but their response is "it's a hoax" then telling them again isn't going to do anything, is it?
The point I'm making is that you keep talking about solutions which have already been tried and failed and you're not addressing the reasons why they failed.
We've tried coming up with technological solutions. No one cared. We tried campaigns and messaging. No one joined. We tried more urgent messaging. People reckoned it was a hoax. We tried politics. The politicians were corrupted. We tried unionising. The corporations were able to put too many barriers in the way.
etc.
If we're to make progress we need to look at the barriers, the reasons why campaigns are failing. all we tend to do is have another campaign instead. And that itself is another barrier. Why do we prefer campaigns to actually working out what needs doing?
Quoting Xtrix
By whom, how, why have they succeed but climate campaigners have failed?
I agree. My focus tends to be on the scale of centuries. The US won't exist in a thousand years, so I tend to ignore it. Maybe I should pay more attention to the contribution my generation makes.
So the point is that nearly everywhere has heard the words. Fine. Completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about. But then again, that really wasn’t the point:
Quoting Isaac
No, people don’t know what they ought to do to help, because they think it’s a hoax.
Quoting Isaac
I was asked about solutions. If what you’re asking is how we make progress towards those ends, overcoming barriers, etc., there’s plenty to be said about it.
If you want my personal opinion, I think that because progress requires people, and lots of them, coming together in solidarity— the answer ultimately involves things like awareness, empathy, listening, finding common ground, and genuine respect for working people. That could be my psychotherapy background talking, but these are the factors involved in any growth and change I’ve ever witnessed. People don’t change by being lectured.
Jane McAlevey has written extensively on this, and comes to similar conclusions— focusing on labor unions, but the principles are the same. She’s had win after win. Worth reading.
Right. That's very similar to where I was headed. What's the point in rehashing the solutions whilst you know full well the barriers to achieving them are as firm as ever.
It's like going over and over the plan to hitchhike to Mexico once you're out of prison without having a clue how you're going to get out.
I'll add that this is all the more true when one considers the impact of those factors on consumerism.
Because I was asked.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720896
So you don't see removal of barriers as part of the solution? What distinguishes the two for you?
Removal of barriers to reach an end is not completely separate, but not the same either. In the post I linked to, I touched on some of them. But what was asked about concerned actions and solutions to climate change. So I gave a few, collective and individual. Some areas there's been real progress, others less so.
If we want to go into detail about how to achieve one in particular, we can. Lately I've been focused primarily on unionization and strikes -- we can get into the strategies and methods that work. But there's all kinds of others -- I mentioned public utility commissions, for example. Plenty of work to be done there; worth getting into if you're interested. There's also efforts to mobilize voters, and the most effective ways to do so. I particularly like deep canvassing, of which there are groups you can join that will train you to learn, if that fits your personality.
Happy to have the discussion, but the post to which you're reacting to was mostly confined to general solutions, since that's what was asked -- not about the detailed strategy, methodology, and tactics involved in achieving them.
Great. Let's take the first issue. We tell people there's global warming, they say it's a hoax. What's your preferred approach there. Seems like people believing there's even a problem is a good place to start solving it.
Not per capita, by a long shot
Indeed but it was in a key position to encourage or discourage the efforts of others, and it did the latter, since the 90's or so until now. Very systematically too. The US owns this crisis. It's made in the USA. While the problem is global, the search for solutions is necessarily local. The US opted to deny the problem.
Which is why BBB won't pass with any climate measure in it, and if by miracle it does pass, then it will be knocked down by the next president. The US is not able to do the right thing on climate, nor even to pretend.
I can't think why it doesn't have any support. More united action on climate change, and less resource use. Win win.
By coincidence, George Monbiot spoke of this issue a couple days ago, I think worth viewing:
The no "alarmism", meek speak, no difficult demands, incrementalism, approach has achieved essentially nothing.
George Monbiot also points out that while the environmental movement has achieved essentially nothing based, our opponents have achieved system change (implementing neo-liberalism and more extreme oligarchic control).
I think a useful analogy to demonstrate my point is: imagine you were an anti-NAZI activist before the NAZI's gained imperial power, and then NAZI's gain imperial power. Ok, yes, resistance can continue, but it's simply reality that in the the previous goal of preventing the NAZI's from taking over has been defeated. Recognising this defeat is simply reality, and to call it "defeatism" is a category mistake.
If I accept I lost a chess game (because I lost the chess game) this says only that I see reality for what it is, and am not in denial about it, and informs nothing of whether I have a defeatist attitude in chess, or generally speaking, in life.
Of course, yes, people who lose chess games may take on a defeatist attitude and not play anymore; however, to trick them into believing they've won, or maybe tied, when they lost is not a solution to defeating defeatism.
You may say: ok, ok, yes, we've lost a lot of battles but what matters is what we do now.
Which I agree with.
Why I am emphasising the defeat is because if we don't see reality as clearly as possible and don't learn from the past then our next actions will not be very effective.
The environmental movement has been going on a pretty long time spinning the same plans around and around; it is, broadly speaking, become closer to a ritualised mea culpa artistic expression, precisely to avoid effective actions (for it is this non-threatening version of environmentalism that is allowed to not only develop unhindered--as it's not threatening anyone--but provided plenty of resources for marketing purposes of the "Great Firms").
Not only would I argue environmentalism has been soundly and unequivocally defeated since it's inception in essentially every dimension, I also argue that the examples of humanism "wins" were also defeats in the final analysis. Even ignoring that social justice means ziltch if we have no environment in which to have a society: did we really defeat slavery? or simply call it by another name? Do we even have democracy? or do we have a global aristocracy in which "democracy" is part of its self-justification, its sense of superior civilisation, its racism, supporting its imperial control of the entire globe? Have we really accomplished these things? or have we merely built the illusions necessary for global elites to normalise their indifference to the vast suffering required for every one of their comforts, block out every fact that would disturb proper conversation.
Not only would I argue we've lost these battles, every advance merely temporary and somehow subsequently subsumed into a mythological reorganisation of the human spirit to render the defeat of every evil in appearance (in the following moments when our movements rest and congratulate themselves on a job well done) are utilised to transform into a far deeper evil, far more pernicious reality, far harder to fight again: for the defeat of the symbol without the defeat of the substance merely renders what was once fought a nameless entity, continuing as before, truly freed from any scrutiny.
We do not have democracy. We do not have humanism. We do not have literacy. We do not have any single one of the slogans slapped on our citadels of hate and corruption (equality? fraternity? life? liberty? pursuit of happiness? good governance? "peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet"? are but whimsical fantasies representing the holy grail of tyrannical power: appropriation of the very minds of the oppressed).
For, I would go even further in my analysis. That not only has our cause met with defeat in every single dimension, every single battle waged, but we have now been pressed back to defending our very last refuge: The castle of our own skulls; our consciousness, sense of self and perception of the world. And the enemy is at the gates. The walls are crumbling in. Our gardens of concepts and experience necessary to sustain the very idea of a fight in the first place, are on fire.
This is not what Taoism teaches.
Taoism teaches:
Quoting The holy Tao, Chapter 27
You beg to differ with a direct citation of the Tao while attempting to claim its cachée and mystique for yourself?
Have you seen climate records, as read from Antarctic ice cores? They tell a story of not one but many CO[sub]2[/sub] crises that resolved themselves without any intervention at all.
You do realise that it's these records that have the scientists that collect and study this data so alarmed?
"Crisis resolving itself" at CO2 levels nowhere near the present (far above anything in the records you cite) does not support the idea we'll stay in the Pleistocene, a long period of glaciation and inter-glaciation to which all life currently on the planet is adapted. These were not crisis but part of the long term natural variation.
Melting the North polar icecap is a completely different scenario than the last 2 million years.
Now, if you mean to say whatever we do we can't kill everything and therefore the situation will be "resolved" in that way. No scientist, and I doubt anyone in the environmental movement, claims that the world's biodiversity will not eventually recover in tens of millions of years if we continue the current mass extinction to it's further extent possible.
The question is if the species currently on the planet have any value and if we have any responsibility to not destroy them for our own amusement (including our own species).
Is it moral that I destroy your painting or a painting of a great master just because someone can paint more later? If I burned the Mona Lisa would you sagely point out that nothing has been lost and the situation will be resolved by more people painting more stuff, just like plenty of paintings have been lost in the past and people just made new ones. Or would you agree I should go to jail for destroying a thing valuable in itself and also part of our cultural heritage? Or should I only go to jail because I destroyed property?
... But is not the earth and all its species and life systems our collective property, and not in an analogous sense, but our current legal framework: states own land, lakes and oceans (and only through this foundational state property does any individual or corporation get subsigned any property rights to what is fundamentally state property, always restricted and always returnable to the state as punishment, requisition or eminent domain purposes) and collectively managed in inter-state legal frameworks even the things "no one owns" as common-property (international oceans, space, antarctic). And people own states; or so I'm told.
However, even so, destruction of the earths life systems damages my property also, far more than if someone put up ghastly window shutters across the way.
The climate doesn't really care.
First, it's simply a false understanding to say the biosphere is self-correcting.
Ecosystem stability is measured in the variability of biodiversity, but that biodiversity itself is not self correcting but constantly changing with a "background" level of extinctions, invasive species, as well as antigenic drift within species. Self correcting would connote returning the same state, but the biosphere does not do this even in "normal" times.
The biosphere adapts to changes and does not somehow resist changes by self-correcting.
Now, if you want to reformulate that by biosphere you don't mean the biosphere as such but certain abstract variables, then yeah, sure; but "self-correcting" yourself like that only betrays a total lack of knowledge and respect for the subject matter you are discussing.
Of course, far worse mistake, and not a matter of taxonomy in the slightest, is your belief that "self-correcting" mechanisms of the biosphere can simply be assumed to be robust enough to deal with climate change.
There is zero evidence for this vis-a-vis climate change. If your justification is simply that you have a right to your opinion despite having zero evidence and zero analysis supporting it ... sure, yeah, great justification, hats off to you.
The earth's biosphere only has self-correcting mechanisms of perturbations, for short term and limited changes. A limited amount of pollution can be diluted and / or processed and / or simply tolerated by the biosphere, but those buffers only last for a certain quantity of pollution. Enough CFC's and the dilution and processing of CFC's is overwhelmed and ozone gets depleted, enough ozone depletion and life systems cannot tolerate the sudden increase in ultra violet light (protection from which has existed on earth since oxygen).
Geological history does show long periods of stability as no event or series of events exceeded the buffers maintaining stability. Over long periods of time the earth's systems can be remarkably stable, one geological eon, the Archean, lasting a billion and half years.
However, the geological record also demonstrates what happens when buffers are exceeded: mass extinction and recovery of biodiversity over tens of millions of years.
The "Freakonomics" guys thought they had some great insight when they pointed out that what matters is rates of change. They honestly seemed to believe it had never occurred to any physicist that the difference between a car crash and a normal stop is the rate of change of the speed of the vehicle.
It wasn't a new insight, but it is of course true: the difference between a stable ecosystem in terms of biodiversity and a mass extinction, is the rate of change of number of extinctions.
That mass extinctions are "good" or "bad", there are arguments on both sides. Mass extinctions do "shake things up" and send life on a different direction than it was before, but each one could also be simply delaying complex life emerging and a significant risk of some "great filter" event. However, I don't know any position that argues causing a mass extinction the best we can, as thoroughly as we can, is our duty in order for new and better stuff to maybe evolve later.
"The earth will survive" argument I have only ever heard supporting the position of apathy and indifference to other species and other people.
However, if you are apathetic and indifferent, why speak?
Technically they weren't even talking about BBB. He killed that bill because he had problems with it's temporary programs (which were there because he restricted the topline number), and also because it didn't do enough to reverse the Trump tax cuts. The bill Manchin just killed was his very own deficit reduction bill funded by tax increases, which he said was the "best way" to fight inflation. Fast forward several grueling months of bad faith negotiations and then Manchin suddenly "found out" that the tax increases were inflationary and that he was suddenly okay with a bill that consists solely in drug prices and a (temporary) ACA extension instead. At least, he's okay with it now (but given his track record, he'd probably have some last minute "revelation" that drug prices are inflationary or something leaving us with literally nothing).
Nevertheless, you're right on the money that this ability of the biosphere to right itself after being knocked over (roly-poly toy like) has limits - beyond a certain point, the point of no return, the system collapses into a death spiral.
You did not state life has "self correcting features". There's plenty of self correcting features, from DNA repair to tectonics plats "correcting" mountains by rising to compensate weathering.
You stated self-correcting is a feature of the biosphere so strong that current CO2 changes will be self-corrected like all the others in the ice-core record.
Furthermore, I literally state that the biosphere is self-correcting to short term and limited changes ...
Quoting Agent Smith
So what are you even debating?
This is why scientists (the ones that produced the data you are talking about) are alarmed. That the changes to CO2 levels (and land-use, fish, etc.) we've caused is far beyond planetary boundaries.
The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually.
The greatest challenge to life on earth so far was low CO2, btw. High CO2 hasn't been been as much of a threat.
Al Gore was American. How many people knew about global warming outside the community of science nerds prior to his work?
You're overstating it. It was not made in the US. It was made by all fossil fuels users.
Untrue statement.
Ocean concentration reaches a balance with CO2 atmospheric concentrations, that it is absorbing and releasing the same amount.
Ocean absorption for the atmospheric concentrations we've reached (higher than in millions of years) is a major ecological problem as it changes the PH of the entire ocean than what ocean life has experienced in millions of years, but we are approaching an acidification level in which in which calcium shells simply don't form. A total catastrophe, not the oceans helping out by eventually solving the problem.
CO2 is not eventually all absorbed the ocean, but it removed from the carbon cycle through weathering, reacting mostly with basalt, in a super long process that takes thousands or tens of thousands of years.
Eventually it is all weathered out, but new CO2 is added to the carbon cycle, mostly, through volcanos and a balance is reached.
Quoting Tate
Again, untrue statement.
Arguably greatest challenge to life was starting and "holding on" in the first place, and the conditions for that were: "When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere" as informed by Smithsonian Environment Research Center.
The very next slide explains: "Three billion years ago, the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing."
I think the knowledge you are looking for is that the earth's atmosphere has had a lot of variation and life has not only adapted to but a main cause of these variations.
By pumping billions of tons carbon into the atmosphere every year for over a century, we are pushing the earth into a "hot house" dynamic where snow is largely missing from both poles, changing the climate significantly to one a large part of current multi-celular life is not adapted, cannot adapt in pace with changes, and will go extinct (as is currently already happening from many other human actions, but climate change is a lot worse as it also affects man-made or happenstance refuges for life).
Quoting Tate
What's even the purpose of this statement? Even if true that high CO2 hasn't been much of a threat, obviously doesn't even exclude that it's a threat now. Other species have not dug and pumped up vast quantities of carbon, completely disturbing the carbon cycle balance.
Are you suggesting that running this uncontrolled experiment of what happens when a species does dig up carbon and dumps vast quantities in the atmosphere in a single geological moment, that it's somehow less risky because no species has run the experiment before?
It has been part of the national curriculum in French highschool since the 70's. I learnt about climate change at school in 1980. With An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore (2006), tried to break the wall of silence in the US, and it was a good thing to do, but outside the US there was no deficit of information. Climate change was not a controversial idea outside of the US by then.It was so well known that all nations of the world had signed the the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
I doubt it. In the 1970s it wasn't clear if the climate was cooling or warming. The effect of the Milankovitch cycle wasn't discovered until the mid 1970s.
In the 1980s it started to become clearer that the climate would warm and, as I said, it was a few science nerds who paid attention.
As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase. It's Henry's Law.
You are literally repeating what I stated: a balance is reached.
Your statement was that oceans will eventually absorb all the CO2 ... literally stating:
Quoting Tate
But if you know your chemistry fundamentals, why made such an absurd claim. The idea shouldn't even come to mind.
Or, maybe you had no clue what you were talking about, but have since educated yourself a bare minimum.
Which is good, having a basic respect for the subject matter you're discussing is a step in the right direction.
For example, if you cite data collected by scientists, borrowing their work and credibility to make a point, a basic respect would be at least take their theories, models and interpretations (in terms of politics and ethics) of the data, that they collect and study, seriously enough as to not simply dismiss anything you find inconvenient entirely based on a-scientific, hand-wavy, vague truisms such as "biosphere is self-correcting" or then simply false statements like "The CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed by the oceans".
The fact, or rather the likelihood, that the climate will settle down to an approximate stability fairly conducive to life in a few tens or hundreds of thousands of years, is not the issue. Life goes on and will go on without humans, and you may think that a good thing.
But some of us are so myopic as to want our children and grandchildren to survive, and do not want the coming century to see a mass-extinction event of 60 -80% of species.Some of us are so limited of vision that we worry about half the major cities of the world being under water.
I don't think it is practical to build sixty meter high dams around our cities, and so it is quite important that all the land ice does not melt.
But never mind. The end of humanity is unimportant compared to the prospect of all the inconvenience of preventing it!
You want me to explain it again:
You make false statements that you yourself agree are false:
You say:
Quoting Tate
And then contradict that statement with:
Quoting Tate
Your other statements are not even scientific.
Quoting Tate
What "challenges" to life have existed over the past 4 billion years requires a non-scientific teleology for life, a goal to life in which to be challenged about, which pretty much any scientist would point out is non-scientific anthropomorphism ("all life" doesn't have any goals, as far as science goes, other than what we project on to it) as obviously the only goal available to postulate is making sentient and intelligent life (ourselves) and anything that we suppose goes in that directly is a good thing and anything that doesn't is a bad thing.
So, not a scientific statement and the followup of "high Co2 hasn't been much a threat" is not even clear how it relates to your teleology of life: threat to all life and total extinction of everything? or threat to particular ecosystem epochs ... in which case CO2 rise has been a major threat:
Quoting Scientific America
That's not a contradiction.
The potential heating effect of certain gases such as CO2 was well established in the lab by the end of the 19th century.
The fact that CO2 concentration were steadily growing in the atmosphere was first demonstrated in the 60 by the works of Charles Keeling and others. The first decent model dates from the 1960's as well, and it correctly predicted a rise in global mean temperature.
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee asked Roger Revelle and Keeling, then serving on the committee’s Environmental Pollution Panel, to write a section of a report -- titled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment -- on atmospheric CO2, or the “invisible pollutant,” as the report identified it. Here is a quote from the summary:
« Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. The CO2 produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200 % increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25 %. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere ».
"As the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of dissolved CO2 in the oceans will increase" means that both are increasing reaching an equilibrium: an equilibrium in which CO2 concentrations are higher both in the atmosphere and in the ocean when we burn carbon.
Therefore, in direct contradiction with the statement "CO2 we've added to the atmosphere will be absorbed into the oceans eventually."
Some of the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, but it is through mostly weathering where CO2 is removed from the carbon cycle, and as this occurs and atmospheric CO2 decreases, then CO2 will also then be released from the oceans back into the atmosphere to maintain the balance.
Difficult to get a more direct contradiction.
However, worse, ocean absorbing CO2 is not a "good sink" that helps, but leads to mass ocean death due to ocean acidification. It is a terrifying problem that the oceans absorb a good part of the CO2 we release in the atmosphere, the extreme other end of the spectrum to "oceans will deal with it, nothing to see here".
In short, oceans will not absorb all the CO2 we've released somehow magically solving our problem, and of the CO2 we release that enters the ocean it is in no way a good thing but entirely a bad thing if one cares about other species (and our own).
Sedimentation captures CO2.
Sure. We were talking about climate change, not the greenhouse effect in general.
It wasn't clear until the 1980s that the climate was warming. I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise.
https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change.
So everyone is right. Put it on your tombstones for no one to read.
This is so true. I don't know what kind of timescale you had in mind, but I think this has been true for some time. I was involved with the road protest movement in England in the 90s and it was (on reflection) exactly as you describe. No one really talked about the solutions to excessive car use, which would have involved a discussion about the break up of communities, increasing social isolation, the erosion of self-esteem, urban growth policy, taxation (public services provision)...etc. The question of which diggers we ought to stand in front of seems almost completely unrelated to stopping the pressure to build more roads. It wasn't that no one considered those other matter problems, but no one had any solutions to them.
Seemed like it was doing good at the time though.
"In all situations, be melodramatic as hell"
--the unenlightened family motto celebrated by his descendants living in Greenland
So? So does my potted cacti. What matters is the relative rates.
I am not arguing otherwise.
Honestly not sure how far back this pattern goes, as there's a selection bias of small victories and momentum in order to support the myth of progress which easily (especially in the good times) pervades everything.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, it really all comes down to cars, suburban sprawl and city planning around cars, and most importantly car culture, which I would argue is the ontological basis of Western individualism and consumerism (I am not of this world because I am in a car).
Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing!
I see. You just meant that climatology was taught in French high schools in the 1970s. That's odd, but ok.
That was in 1980. It was the first time I heard about what we would later learn to call "climate change", I guess because "global warming" sounds too scary... Hysterical, right?
Then in the 90's there was all the discussion about the Kyoto protocol. Al Gore, in 2006, broke the news to Americans only, or to the few who believed him, anyway.... The rest of the world was well aware a decade before at the very least.
More sickening news.
Global warming was a common theme in science fiction in the 1980s. The 1982 movie [I]Blade Runner[/I] was typical. So no, the news wasn't broken to Americans by Al Gore. He was just unusually successful in raising alarm.
Sickening indeed! What will it take to halt business as usual, or even slow it down?
I think a huge part of the issue is that people want governments to solve the problem as long as it doesn't inconvenience them or impact their accustomed lifestyles. Any governments that propose measures such as taxes, restrictions on international travel, restrictions on fuel and power usage and so on, will not be voted in come next election. Maybe democracies are inadequate to solve the problem because there are too many competing interests. But then autocracies are generally corrupt.
Just that "per capita" doesn't mean much.
Oh. No, it's not relevant to that. CO2 footprint is relative to wealth. Few are poor by choice
Given how polarized US politics was becoming at the time, I'm starting to wonder if Gore being the face of climate change activism in the country made Americans LESS likely to address it. Not that that was his fault, of course (more society's), but we all know how politics ruins literally everything.
Whatever.
Could be. I hadn't thought of that.
With his fleet of SUVs and flying all over the world? How could that be?
Sci-fi, huh? Strange to rely on movies to get exposed to a leading scientific problem... You guys don't study science in the classroom much, apparently. That would explain your surprise.
Quoting Tate
I was just responding to your original claim that before Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, almost nobody knew about CC.
The reason action on climate change failed is that it was strongly opposed by big oil companies and similar interests, who managed to pull the wool over the American public's eyes for decades, and made them believe that it was a "hoax".
I drive therefore I am.
Yes, one of the more successful campaigns at getting us to buy things we don't need. I imagine a smoke-filled board room in Manhattan somewhen in the late 1920s -
"People have already bought all the labour-saving stuff that makes their lives easier, it lasts a lifetime, we're going to go out of business. Any ideas?". Long silence.
"We could always sell them stuff they don't need...or make the stuff they do need break...".
"Excellent. We'll do both",
"But people would have to either be really stupid or really desperate to buy stuff they don't even need which breaks after a year",
"Excellent. We'll do both".
I just meant that the average person didn't know. It was mostly science nerds who knew.
Except in France where everyone was a damned climatologist at a time when those in the field described it as "a science of wild guesses.".
Wild guesses do not apply in thermodynamics... It is a proven fact that CO2 traps more heat than N2 or O2, the other principal components of the atmosphere. Based in this fact, pumping CO2 in the atmosphere was bound to raise average temperatures.
Many people have been conned into doubting CC for far too long, by a well-oiled machinery of deception.
Many of them in the US.
https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/
It's so frighteningly simple.
Maybe you should get up to speed on what's already been discussed on this very thread.
Quoting boethius
Is a comment from 12 months ago, posting a video for those who can't "google" as you recommend others to do.
The key words in "climate change" are "change" and "climate", as in we are changing the climate from ice-age to not-ice age, through the green house effect that heats the planet, heat that is not good for ice.
And to respond ahead of time to your bullshit.
How do you know we've been in an ice-age as you say?
Did you drill those core samples yourself? Or are you just repeating things that scientists who do that research say?
If their credible on the ice-age scientific facts you base your argument on ... why are they not credible on their opinions on climate change?
You cannot simply selectively pick someone's credibility, when it supports your world view and just dismiss anything else they say when it doesn't. You must at least provide:
A. you understand their analysis that you think is wrong; if their credible on something else, clearly their analysis is something that at least needs contending with.
B. compelling reasons and evidence that their analysis you disagree with is in fact wrong.
Scientists can for sure be wrong, even whole communities of scientists, but one needs compelling reasons and can't just dismiss their wrong-ideas off hand when convenient without justification. It is critical in such situation to make clear what they get right, why they get it right, demonstrate deep understanding of what they get wrong and compelling analysis and evidence that they are in fact wrong.
For example, Einstein didn't just declare "Newton is wrong! Don't believe anything he said!" but rather demonstrated a deep understanding of Newtonian gravity, why it works well in our local context, a deep understanding of where it maybe deficient, and a new theory that addresses those deficiencies with compelling analysis and proof (without contradicting, but providing a deeper explanation of, whatever is true in the old theory).
Truism like "we're in an ice age!" or:
Quoting Agent Smith
Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast).
It's not clear whether increased CO2 will take us out of the present ice age or not.
Quoting boethius
That's the standard scientific perspective at this time.
Quoting boethius
Global warming is real. Nobody said otherwise.
What’s the relevance of this remark?
The Wikipedia article on The Balance of Nature says that one scientist declares that it's an "enduring myth." It's considered an obsolete theory.
However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui?
To remind you of your position in the thread:
Quoting Agent Smith
Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!?
Quoting Tate
And, what is clear in the current science is that the amount of CO2 we've released so far into the atmosphere will cause severe damages to earth systems, is already causing severe damages, nothing can now stop that.
What's also clear is that the risk of feedback mechanism (aka. tipping points) is exceedingly high.
And what matters is risk, not guarantees. It is irrational to take an even small risk of melting the Arctic ice-cap and most mountain glaciers and and Greenland. It is irrational to take an even small risk of entering an entirely ice-free climate with the melting of the Antarctic as well.
These are not reasonable risks to take. "100% certainty" is a fossil lobby delay tactic that the gullible fall for (more importantly, a talking point for corrupt politicians knowing they are killing people and destroying the planet for money ... or then just useful idiots financed from the beginning because they're clueless).
For example, let's say it isn't certain as you say.
What is the uncertainty? i.e. risk level.
Why would that risk, even according to your numbers, be worthwhile to take?
Quoting Tate
Did you even read what I wrote? My point was you know this because scientists told you.
The same scientists saying that the climate is not self correcting and our modifications to the atmosphere are of extreme concern and may kill billions of people as well as cause a mass-extinction of life on earth.
Why listen to one thing they say, but dismiss off-hand another?
Quoting Tate
Again ... (ignoring the other climate change gas-lighters that drop in from time to time) you yourself literally stated:
Quoting Agent Smith
... Explain how that's somehow not contradiction again?
You're attributing someone else's words to me.
Which one?
Fact: CO[sub]2[/sub] levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s.
Hypothesis: Negative feedback loops aka the balance of nature.
What's wrong with the hypothesis? Note Henry's law is a component of autoregulation.
CO2 levels have increased dramatically since the 1800s. What are you talking about?
The climate changes drastically from time to time. Changes in CO2 levels have been the main culprit in numerous climate change events in the past.
The one I linked to. Just click it on and it'll take you there. Are you truly unaware of how this forum works?
If that's too difficult, I'm referring to the following:
Quoting Tate
What is the relevance of this remark?
No need to get testy. A poster had suggested that climate change is simple and easily understood by referencing the laws of thermodynamics. That's not true. Factors as far flung as the present shape of the Earth's orbit are involved in predictions. The fact that the onset of another glacial period is due in the next few centuries is another issue compounding the complexity.
Is this news to you?
The earth system is not stable, there are no negative-feedback mechanisms that return it to the same state.
The earth-system has a lot of buffers that make change slow. Most of the time change and patterns of change are relatively constant and life easily adapts to these changes.
Thus, total biodiversity can be stable over long periods of time, but even then species themselves are not stable but going extinct and new one's evolving constantly.
This apparent stability is due to large buffers in the earths system that slow down change (but are not negative feedback loops).
A better visualisation of the earth's system is simply a large boat in calm water. It seems stable as long as there's no wind, easily confused with a boat at anchor.
A light breeze and it gently floats somewhere else, totally unpredictable which direction, how far it goes etc. Slow enough the boat can easily just lightly beach itself and later free itself, bounce off rocks and docks etc.
The wandering around of the boat represents evolution.
Where the boat is at any given time we can understand as its journey through evolutionary space (each point on the lake represents some possible configuration of the earth's living systems, and the whole lake represents all possible configurations).
It's a very heavy boat, so takes a significant input of energy to crash it.
Such energy inputs only come around once in hundreds of millions of years: production of large quantities of oxygen for the first time, giant asteroid, volcanic traps, or "perfect storm" combination of various disasters.
Crashing the boat onto rocks represents a mass-extinction, the points along the short that require significant momentum to reach representing low-biodiversity configurations of the earth-life-system.
Same analogy can be made with something that's heavy, that rolls, that seems "stable" but someone gives it a nudge and off it goes, compared to an actually stable situation where the brakes are engaged.
CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions.
Didn't know that. Reference?
The global average temperature is rising at an alarming rate because of greenhouse gas emissions. That's not difficult to understand. I have no idea why the laws of thermodynamics are being invoked, but it's irrelevant.
There are complex variables involved, most of which have been accounted for by climate scientists -- including natural variation. Stating "we're in an ice age" in this context is still odd to me, and I fail to see the relevance. If it was in response to what someone else said, fine -- but you didn't quote them and didn't reference them.
Climate change is easy to understand: change the composition of the atmosphere to trap more heat ... and more heat is trapped.
You are confusing basic understanding of a particular issue in a particular subject with modelling the whole subject.
The basic driver of climate change is incredibly easy to understand, and is basic thermodynamics (it's called the green-house effect ... because it's as simple as a greenhouse).
In the 70s there was some debate as to whether another simple effect of pollution, that dust creates shade, would in fact be stronger than the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
One does not need to model the entire climate, or understand everything about it, to understand the globe is warming, why it's warming, and why that's bad for humans and other species.
It's really not complicated at all. It would be complicated and require deep expertise to create a predictive model.
However, it is not difficult to understand the mechanism of warming, the data that supports that conclusion, and what climatologists are talking about when they explain climate change in simple terms.
It's a fact about the climate. We're talking about the climate. Problem?
With global warming
1. The greenification of Antarctica will occur.
2. The northward march of the timber line has been predicted.
Negative feedback loops, oui?
Then the following...
Quoting Agent Smith
...is meaningless.
Quoting Agent Smith
According to whom? Where are you getting this from?
The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are not going to correspond exactly to emissions. No one has ever claimed that. Why? Because the oceans absorb a great deal of CO2, and plants increase their CO2 uptake -- to name two factors.
The CO2 has to go somewhere, and it was difficult to predict how efficiently the oceans could absorb new CO2.
However, the oceans absorbing CO2 is not a good thing, as causes ocean acidification.
Likewise, other sinks, like rain forests, that can absorb more CO2 as plants can grow a bit faster with more of their food in the air, is not necessarily a good thing if we destroy those forests anyways, with slash and burn farming for cattle, or then climate change causing massive forest fires, which simply releases that CO2 back into the atmosphere.
For example, the entire Amazon forest may have already went from being a sink of CO2 to a source.
Edit: beat me to the obvious response, as with the previous response.
For decades now, scientists have known, just from looking at the geological record, that the reglaciation should start sometime in the next few centuries. That means glaciers come back down and cover Chicago. It means the UK is under a sheet of ice. This was disturbing news when it was first discovered, and we now know quite a bit more about how it works, what the trigger is, and so forth.
We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway. There are aspects of the question that we don't even know how to model right now.
No, it's not simple.
These are not negative feeback loops. The greenification of the Antarctic would be a massive change the the earth-life-system.
Eventually the CO2 will come down due to mostly weathering over hundreds of thousands of years.
However, this is not a negative feedback loop changing the earth-system back to what it is now.
Mass extinction, followed by a green antarctic, followed by millions of years of biodiversity recovery and potentially returning to the glaciation that we've had recently, is not stability.
Why? A rise in CO[sub]2[/sub] causes global warming which in turn causes greenification that then causes a fall in CO[sub]2[/sub]. That's a negative feedback loop alright!
You present yourself as "knowledgeable" about ice-ages ... but have not even bothered to read the second paragraph of the wikipedia entry "ice age":
Quoting Ice age
What would have been the natural pattern if we didn't dump billions of tons of carbon a year into the atmosphere ... is not of predictive value if we do dump billions of carbon a year into the atmosphere.
It's like we're discussing building a damn, and you're explaining how that's not a problem for the ecosystems because the river has been naturally flowing without a problem for the fish for thousands of years, and scientists have already said the salmon come back every year to spawn (it's their instinct).
The problem is that it's as irrelevant as stating any random fact about the climate.
Quoting Tate
We're in an interglacial period of a large scale ice age. Specifically, we're at the end of an interglacial awaiting reglaciation.
That's not a negative feedback loop that keeps the system stable, which is the issue: stability.
Negative feedback loop, connotes a a feedback mechanism strong enough to return a system to the same state: maintaining stability.
There is negative feedback, but it is not some sort of loop that returns the system to stability. Some carbon is absorbed by greening the antarctic, but it is a paltry amount compared to what we've emitted so far, and, in any-case, even small compared to other sources of CO2 such as permafrost and rain forests burning away.
It is not a feeback look, but better described as a buffer; absorbs some, like the oceans, slows down warming, but doesn't return the system to its former state.
A feedback loop would be that CO2 increase triggers mad greenification of deserts rapidly absorbing the excess C02 back to equilibrium baseline. This would be hypothetically possible if CO2 was the limiting factor to plant growth; however, it's not.
An example of a feedback mechanism in the earths system is ice melting:
More ice melts in the arctic ocean, more exposed water, more energy is absorbed resulting in more melting.
More ice melts in Greenland, more water absorbing more energy, but also lower the altitude of the ice surface gets, the lower the altitude the hotter, causing more melting (under a certain threshold catastrophic melting will occur).
If we did not change the composition of the earth's atmosphere.
I literally just cited the wikipedia article on "Ice age" explaining this, that we have already delayed the next glaciation by a good 500 000 years due to the carbon we've already emitted.
If we change the earths atmosphere composition even more, we can exit an ice-age to a significant (mass-extinction scale) degree (lose all year-round ice in the arctic) or even exit an ice age completely and melt the Antarctic as well, mass-extinction even harder.
It's possible. If we burn all the coal we can access it will become more likely. That would take around 200 years.
So how does that square with the earth's biosphere is "self correcting"?
And, again, assuming you're aware outcomes increase in severity with the warming and have uncertainties (maybe it takes "burning all the coal", maybe it takes significantly less), how are these acceptable risks to take?
Jul 28, 2022 (this year)
By the way, they do list some actions that can help.
I don't even know what that means.
Quoting boethius
It would probably be prudent to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, like completely.
You're the one arguing we'll stay in an ice-age ... because we're in an ice-age.
That natural cycles, like the next glaciation, will happen for some reason despite our modifications to the atmosphere.
Quoting Tate
So what are you even arguing?
Completely irrelevant, as was the initial comment.
The fact remains: climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions, and is happening at a rapid rate. Very simple indeed.
If you want to discuss ice ages, and how climate change may impact the next ice age, fine -- that's a different topic.
You've been making statements like:
Quoting Tate
Climatologists are observing glaciers melting and predicting more melting, where are the climatologists predicting reglaciation starting sometime in the next few centuries?
And if reglaciation is going to happen in the next few centuries, why worry about warming or stop CO2 emissions?
It's not a different topic if it's happening in the next few centuries and there's nothing to worry about ... except starting to move our Northern most populations south so they don't get buried in kilometres of ice.
I think it's very much on topic.
Quoting boethius
As I said, we've known about this since the 1980s. It just doesn't come up much because it's centuries away.
Quoting boethius
I would say because of the unknown, something unforeseen. Suppose some super disease appears because of climate change,and we don't survive it?
If down the road we want to stop reglaciation, let tomorrow's scientists figure out how to do that safely.
Thanks for being so friendly, and not at all unnecessarily aggressive.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manchin-schumer-climate-deal_n_62e1a677e4b07f83766bafbb
A complete reversal.
Randomly stating facts about ice ages in a climate change thread is irrelevant. Stay on topic or start another thread about ice ages.
Can you cite one climate model predicting an ice age in a few centuries?
Quoting Tate
Did you even bothering reading the second paragraph of wikipedia entry on "ice age"?
I'll site it again:
Quoting Ice age-Wikipedia
Wikipedia can certainly be wrong, but claiming it is wrong should have more support than simply vaguely referencing something scientists knew in the 80s; and at least one reference to compete with Wikipedia's 3 references for this point.
And neither 50 000 years nor 500 000 years sounds like a few centuries to me.
Quoting Ice age-Wikipedia
Wow. This is wrong. Wikipedia lets us down
Apologies, can't seem to find one. However, in my defense, since climatologists claim global warming is a fact, they should be able to confirm/counter my claim; after all science is all about making accurate quantifiable predictions.
There is a delay from CO2 emission to associated temperature increase. Maybe that's what you were thinking about?
I've explained at some length the idea of "supporting your conclusions".
Like, how is Wikipedia wrong on this point, what's the errors in the analysis of the cited sources? ... where are the climatologists with models demonstrating the ice age coming in a few centuries?
Quoting Ice age-Wikipedia
Models show that at present levels of CO2, reglaciation will begin somewhere between 500 and 3000 years. If we burn all the available coal, it becomes a near miss. In other words, we don't know for sure, but it looks like we would miss this trigger, and it would be around 40,000 years before another trigger arrives.
I'll have to look at what research they based that comment on.
Aye!
If an ice age is in the offing, the greenhouse effect could be just what the doctor ordered. The two could cancel each other out and we would've averted a global catastrophe. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to heaven could be paved with bad ones! :snicker:
[quote=William Cowper] God moves in a mysterious way.[/quote]
It means change is ahead no matter what we do. Civilization emerged during a relatively serene period. It's first big test will be whatever happens in the next few centuries.
I’ll say it once more: not only is this inaccurate, it’s also completely irrelevant and off topic.
Not according to the WIKI entry on Ice Ages:
"Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for around 11,700 years,[47] and an article in Nature in 2004 argues that it might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.[48]"
This suggests that we are around the middle of an interglacial period, not at the end of one. Can you cite a reference for your claim that we are at the end of an interglacial period?
"..the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years."
here
The conventional wisdom for sometime has been 500-3000 years. The trigger is cold winters in the northern hemisphere.
What "conventional wisdom" is that? Do you have a source? The information from the source you did cite seems to have been cherry-picked by you:
"How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last?
No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years."
"Lasted over ~20,000 years": how long is that 20,000 years, 23.000 tears, 25,000 years? "May have persisted for 17.000 years" May it have persisted for 15,000 years then? Also, it is widely accepted that the durations of past phenomena are not reliable indicators for the duration of subsequent phenomena. At best they are all we have to go on. Hardly good grounds for "between 500-3.000 years, or for claiming that we are at the end of an interglacial period.
C'mon, man. My sources are all books and articles. You're looking for an internet blurb. Be a human, why don't you?
It has nothing to do with "an internet blurb" or "being human"..You linked the source. If you have others, then quote them to back up your claims, Otherwise you cannot show your opinions to be anything of greater authority than those of just one more opinionated dude on the internet.
I linked that source because as far as I know, it represents the standard answer. For some reason the Wiki article is highlighting one article from Nature and not emphasizing the standard range of answers. So I'm looking.
It actually is about being human.
This is a study from 2013 about summer insolation reglaciation triggering. It upholds the standard view that we're fairly close to a trigger point now since we know summer insolation is at a minimum.
If you want a simpler narrative, I would advise a climatology textbook. There are some good ones out there
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/722883
Quoting Tate
Yep, it's true; no fucking way.
Wow. Tough crowd.
Quoting Tate
That's 'entertainer' talk. Are you just here to entertain?
The article you linked to in no way supports your claim that reglaciation will start in a few centuries.
The article also in no way contradicts the wikipedia statement that we've already delayed reglatiation by some 500 000 years or more.
The article you link to does not even address man-made climate change, but is studying the natural 100 000 year pattern of glaciation and inter-glacials.
The study investigates the mechanisms of glacial retreat in the natural cycle of glaciation.
Which, if humans interfere with the natural cycle, there is zero reason to assume things will continue as normal simply because that's been the pattern so far, just like if we damn a river there is no reason to assume the salmon will return and spawn in the river if the damn physically prevents them from doing so.
The Wikipedia article is wrong. The same information shows up in the article on the Milankovitch cycle and it's superscripted with "verification failed".
The article I provided does explain that current glaciation cycles are triggered by low summer insolation. That confirms that we are presently near a glaciation trigger. This has been conventional wisdom for several decades.
The glaciation of the globe, if it occurs, will surely counteract the global warming and if we're lucky and smart enough we may even be able to control the climate by regulating CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. From unmanageable global warming to fine-tuning climate, a plot twist worthy of a bestseller, oui monsieur? I'm not averse to taking some (calculated) risks, mon ami! We can, if we play our cards right, make a good friend of a deadly foe.
That's not what's happening.
Think before you speak! :chin:
Look before you leap! :chin:
[quote=Mr. Anderson]But if you already know, how can I make a choice?[/quote]
[quote=The Oracle]Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.[/quote]
Maybe cite what you're talking about, but I'm happy to do it for you:
Quoting Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia
The statement you cite (I assume ... because you don't actually cite it) that "failed verification" does not contradict the wikipedia statement on the Ice Age page you say it contradicts.
It's a statement that doesn't really infer anything (just "suggesting" something without any predictive value on the whole system; one factor among many, if it is even vaguely representing something true, which "failed verification" may "suggest" it isn't) ... certainly not about events in the next few centuries which is the point under discussion.
Indeed, right after this statement that "fails verification", the same information I cited from the Ice Age page is cited again:
Quoting Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia
The thing you claim is contradicted ... is literally repeated the very next statement.
What "fails verification" is "recent work" that "suggests" insolation will increase over the next 25 000 years. Now, this could be just a misrepresentation of the work; for example, one subtle orbital mechanic that does increase insolation by itself, in an overall decreasing trend towards less insolation and (without human interference) reglaciation (as we both agree). But we don't know what the source material says ... because it's not cited (honestly seems like someone inserted some propaganda).
Now, what the very next statement in the Milankovitch cycles says, that a new glacial period may start in the next 50 000 years, is true for the Milankovitch cycle, but does not comment on man-made interference, which the Ice Age page provides this additional context with citation (no "failed verification").
Additionally, what matters is the actual sources, not what is tagged or not in Wikipedia. Someone could tag "failed verification" and then the very next day the source is added and the issue resolved.
We need to actual sources.
You are confusing research into the natural glaciations cycles that have been occurring for the last 2 million years with human interference in those natural cycles and the consequences of that.
Again, if humans interfere in a system the pattern may diverge wildly from what was there before. If we damn a river the patterns of fish migration may stop, even if they have been occurring for thousands of years.
If we remove a mountain in mountain top removal operation, it would be clearly wrong to say the mountain will still be there because the patter has been the mountain has been there for millions of years and plate movement is actually pushing the mountain upwards and making it taller. Yes, the natural pattern maybe that the mountain is getting taller and will get even taller due to plate tectonics ... but that theory of the natural system does not remain true if we go and remove said mountain.
It's supposed to follow from the portion that failed verification.
Quoting boethius
Yes. I mentioned the computer modeling on this earlier. I think you're attributing a motive to me that isn't there. This was brought up originally to show that the science of global warming is not simplistic. From there we started debating the standard scientific outlook.
I have not proposed that climate change should be denied due to this information.
What failed verification is this:
Quoting Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia
Which neither you nor I are claiming.
We both agree that the planet would normally be heading towards reglatiation (I wouldn't say next few centuries, but going towards that).
The issue at hand is the effect of human interference; in particular dumping billions of tons of carbon every year into the atmosphere and carbon cycle that would not otherwise get there, resulting in higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere than any point in the last millions of years.
Also nothing relevant can be inferred from this statement about insolation anyways (it does not in any-case comment on the state of the climate system as a whole, which is what we're discussing), even if it was true (which, my guess, is there is some truthiness to it, and it comes from misreading an article discussing some subtle orbital effect that, in itself, increases insolation but is minuscule compared to the major orbital mechanics that will be decreasing overall insolation; and then someone dropped in "aha, insolation will be increasing" without citation ... and so makes sense it fails verification).
The statement that "failed verification" (which in wikipedia is only a tag to represent missing sources, which maybe provided by the author of the statement; it is not a tag that means "this statement is false" and has no argumentative use in that roll), does not remotely do what you are claiming, in contradicting:
Quoting Ice age
Thank you.
Quoting boethius
Right. That requires computer modeling.
Where we disagree is that you claim this natural pattern will continue anyways, or there is some serious doubt as to the effect of our CO2 emissions:
Quoting Tate
We not only know that our current CO2 emissions will delay reglaciation by upwards of 500 000 years or more, but we also know that CO2 emissions are pushing us out of the current climate paradigm altogether, towards an ice-free planet.
There are always more details that can be modelled, no predictive model is as complete as the natural system being modelled (this is true for all models).
What matters is the confidence of the predictions that can be made with current knowledge and modelling, and then risk assessment.
The risks are intolerably high ... which you seem to agree with.
Quoting Tate
So, it's not clear what you're even disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make. If you want to just discuss the physics of the climate and get into nuances that have no relevance to this particular discussion, then there are science and physics forums for that.
You seem to just want to make vague statements that imply global warming is not a problem, might get magically solved, or scientists "don't know everything", to soften the blow, such as we're going towards an ice age in the next few centuries (sounds the opposite of warming! god be praised!), but then just backtrack everything to actually have been completely meaningless and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That's not good faith discussion and deserves no respect.
Where you do make statements that have a baring on the discussion, such as "We don't presently know if increased CO2 will cause us to miss the trigger, or if reglaciation will begin anyway," they are simply false.
That's just not true. I've explained that several times now
That's what you're statements, like an ice age is expected in the next few hundred years, imply.
Your whole current argument is that there is some doubt as to the next ice age, that human CO2 has not completely disrupted the natural cycle, or then there is some doubt about that. Read your own statements.
Obviously, if the earth may actually cool anyways and the current warming is transitory, that implies global warming is a lot smaller problem than essentially the entire climatology community have concluded.
Essentially all your statements, either about the ice age, or claiming gaps in knowledge (which only matter in the context of this discussion if the uncertainty would change a decision, of which there are no candidates), such as
Quoting Tate
Or take your statement:
Quoting Tate
What other interpretation of this statement is possible than implying interlocutors discussing the catastrophic consequences of climate change do not know we are "in an ice age" which has the connotation of being cold rather than hot.
Likewise, by being derogatory in this matter, that participants do not have an even basic knowledge of the subject (while predicting an ice age will likely, or even potentially, start in a few centuries), that their statements can therefore be dismissed.
I don't think we should back down from stating scientific facts because someone could imply something we disagree with.
As has been explained to you in your thread complaining about the moderation, throwing out a scientific fact that has no relevance to the discussion (neither supporting nor contradicting any position in the discussion, not even your own, which seems to be we should stop all CO2 emissions immediately), is bad faith and adds nothing to the dialogue.
Almost none of your statements are scientific fact, and, this particular example of an ice age starting in a few hundred years, has zero scientific basis whatsoever and is extreme contradiction to what the entire climatology community is predicting.
So, first, in no way factual and you've provided no citations to support your mad theory that an ice age is likely, or even remotely possible, to be triggered in the next few hundred years. So, if you want to play the facts game, which I suggest you do, then the basic rule of the game is "evidence", which you provide nothing remotely supporting your claims.
You're intention is clear: try to throw out statements that make one implication, or just false statements, then ignore criticism or backtrack to your statement being totally meaningless.
For example, that models are not complete is true for all models. To be relevant to the discussion you need to point out what's missing from those models and what decisions might change in a more complete model and how that change is relevant.
However, for climate models, there are no such candidates.
Increasing CO2 beyond anything the earth has experienced in millions of years is a reckless uncontrolled experiment with intolerable risks, already intolerable proven harms to people and living systems we've caused so far, and more precise models have zero candidates of greater precision or then added complexity that would remotely possibly change such a conclusion.
Throwing shade on the models by claiming they aren't complete (as is true for all models) has no relevance to any decision making.
It's called propaganda, not good faith discussion. If you genuinely perceive yourself as not repeating propaganda, then you're a useful idiot to the propagandists that have filled your head with nonsense.
That's really not true. I'm not continuing this discussion with you.
Most of your statements are not even purporting to be facts, and the one's that are you do not support with any evidence, and the one statement you cited an article for does not support your statement.
Yes, it was a lame attempt of yours to get back at me, when I stated the well-established fact that Americans have been effectively kept uninformed and misinformed about climate change for decades by fossil fuel interests.
You took offense and pulled the glaciations out of your rear end to try and prove me simplistic. Remember that the truth may sometimes be quite simple. In this case: the truth is that the US were conned by big oil into disbelieving CC, and what the con men stole was our future.
This simple, easily verifiable truth bothered you for some reason, perhaps because you are American and nationalistic, or perhaps because you personally were a victim of this misinformation campaign so my point felt like a personal accusation to you. Whatever the reason, you tried to muddle the issue by talking about glaciations and posturing as the sophisticated guy in the known... How did that work out for you? :kiss:
I don’t think we’re yet evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle as complex a situation as climate change. (2010)[/quote]
(see German Utilities Prepare to Turn on Coal Plants Amid Gas Crisis)
(See Germany plans to put idled coal plants on standby in case of gas supply disruption)
But of course nuclear energy won't do, it's evil...
(See Why Germany won’t give up on giving up nuclear)
In fact, even other neighbouring countries have asked about this stupidity...
Well, at least the incoming recession will have positive effects (even if just for a short while and creating other problems). Just like the pandemic had on consumption, for a while.
This legitimately had me laughing. Well done. :lol:
Quoting ssu
It really is ridiculous, isn't it? We need nuclear now more than ever. I understand the concerns, but they've vastly overblown. What a pity.
The fear and hostility towards nuclear energy shows the unfortunate truth that perceptions overrule fact based thinking. And politicians will choose those wrongful perceptions if that means getting the votes of the voters. Moreover, when it has come to nuclear energy, the anti-nuclear lobby has had it's own separate facts and truths about the dangers of the industry.
And if we now know that the use of fossil fuels has effects on the climate, the more outrageous thing is that the actual lethality of burning coal and oil is either not known or just taken as granted as we have burned coal for so long:
And btw, the decision for Germany to shut down all it's nuclear energy was made because of a nuclear accident that happened because of a Tsunami that killed 15 000. And the death toll from the Fukushima accident? In 2018, one cancer death of a man who worked at the plant at the time of the accident was attributed to radiation exposure by a Japanese government panel.
When coal plants kill from hundreds of thousands to millions in the World annually and cause climate change, these kind of policy choices are really bizarre.
It's fear of the bomb... combined with an aversion of technology, human hubris, of which the splitting of atoms is a prime example.
That's how it goes I suppose, ideologies are historically contingent. There is some weird 'logic' to them in the way they evolve over time. When confronted with environmental problems, the green movement latched onto some pre-existing religious myths that seems vaguely applicable. Looking for something familiar is probably not a bad idea if you are looking for a way into the hearts and minds of people.
And then, when an ideology is established, when confronted with some new eventuality, it initially doesn't really matter what the facts are because of the inertia of people believing in a story that has been told in a certain way over the years.
Anyway, what this whole affair illustrates to me is 1) that we don't really have that much collective agency as we would like to think, and 2) that ultimately when a country has to make a choice between the two, energy-security will take precedence over measures to combat climate change.
Indeed, Germany should have kept its nuclear plants. That was a knee jerk reaction.
I know France has a decent amount of renewables, I've just been there a few days ago, and the landscape is absolutely filled with windmills along the big highways.
I think France is just fanatic about other things than Germany... :-)
The politics are very different. Clearly the Germans have a much stronger green movement than we do. Sometime it has led them to some pretty absurd decisions like foregoing nuclear energy.
The French greens are quite pathetic, I must say. Historically their only strong and politically smart leader has been Dany Cohn-Bendit, who is... Franco-German!
I do think we (French) should do better there, but ecology can also turn into a political ideology, as fractious and divisive as any which is very much the problem with the French green party.
No doubt :-)
On the green movement, I'm critical of it because I think it could be the one political movement with actual solutions to our current predicament. We definitely need an ecological perspective of some kind going forward. But as it stands, the movement usually doesn't deliver, because I think at base it's a bit confused and can't seem to decide between being a real political player that wants to shape current society, and being this impractical back-to-nature fantasy that can't be realised. It probably should let go of the latter, but then that is what seems to appeal to a lot of people. That's why nuclear power plants are such a hard issue for them, and not only in Germany.
With the debate about nuclear, this is true.
But I have to say that many greens have been respectable enough to change their minds about nuclear energy and have not latched on the popular myths.
I think it's a problem for all political parties: when your base intensely believes in some myth which isn't true, they won't start to correct their supporters, even if they know it's not true.
We are seeing now quite clearly that the mantra "we just have to turn to renewable energy sources" isn't the short term answer that we can pick.
Yes one of the functions of a political ideology is also that it appeals to, recruits and ties people to a political party. And since people tend to like simple narratives more than say the intricate minutia of public policy, I don't think there's a way around this really.
Quoting ssu
No that's right, yet it'll take a while still until parties will change that mantra... unless of course an energy crisis will take political parties in speed.
I wonder how long it will take political parties to come clean on the myth of progress and perpetual economic growth ;-)
I couldn't agree more. It's a newish political ideology and as such, very fractious still, a bit like communism was in its infancy. It hasn't gelled around some practical consensus yet.
https://apple.news/AdAE4xfbNQyiITnXxH1d0cw
Although, I didn't participate in the new thread, I don't think it's fair to say those that went and demonstrated the absurdity of the ice age in a few hundred years hypothesis and the science isn't settled! So many unknowns! Are wasting their time.
I think it's important to pick apart bad faith denialist propaganda and show how it works.
In this case, the basic idea behind the propaganda is to impress on the gullible that we can continue business as usual, roll the dice and maybe get lucky with a new ice age in a few centuries (which certainly doesn't sound like a 6 degree warming, mass extinction, very possibly humans extinct, dystopian world with extreme hardships for everyone starting in our life time ... but more, hmm, maybe it gets colder again due to the glaciation pattern continuing! Use that climate data against them!).
A basic schematic of "ok, scientists may have 'a point', but they don't know everything! And the future is uncertain! Sure it would be 'prudent' to stop CO2 emissions, but it's not totally irrational to continue the 'American way of life' since maybe we'll get lucky."
Propaganda that allows the gullible to simply imagine a pleasant future, at least for rich countries, and once fixed in the mind, is a gentle constant lullaby for the soul.
Of course, I completely agree that this should not take up all our time, and I also agree that some people get too focused on criticising the enemy and lose sight completely of needing to coordinate with allies to get anything actually done.
This recent article summarises the "bleak" position and reason it's important to accept:
Quoting ‘Soon it will be unrecognisable’: total climate meltdown cannot be stopped, says expert
This is the best most recent summary of the current situation I can find:
Notice both interlocutors are actual scientists that have worked on the issue, have cohesive arguments and shit, don't just hand waive platitudes like the earth is self-balancing (without justification), or ice age will start any century now (without justification).
Notice also the focus on risks.
The most successful propaganda of the oil lobby was convincing (aka. bribing) the media and political classes into accepting the idea that predictions must be "certain" to justify action.
Yet, in their own board rooms they make decisions based on impact x probability = risk.
Indeed, their whole interest in financing climate denial is because non-corrupt politicians making rational decisions based on intolerable risk to experiment with the earth's climate, starting with simply ceasing to subsidise fossil fuels which isn't justified even within their own neo-liberal delusions sans-climate-disaster (we never hear about "the market" needing to function when it comes to these subsidies), maybe low-probability but is nevertheless extremely high impact to their bottom lines, resulting in medium financial risk levels: therefore, justifying investments in mitigatory action on a net-present-value basis for an optimum allocation of resources to protect sunk costs in technology and infrastructure to extract shale, bitumen and deep water (rather than accept fossil extraction scaling down while renewables scale up), as part of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
Yet, when people who care about the earth and all who dwell upon the earth and don't even own any shares in oil companies, use the same impact x probability = risk framework to analyse the situation:
Alarmism!
Pretty accurate description of the massive forest fires (in particular in rain forests that are evolved without fire as it's usually too wet: see key word "rain"), as well as the civil unrest that goes along with empirical verification of what "unsustainability" entails.
Quoting London wildfires: Crews say they experienced absolute hell
What might happen if we do nothing, and we were wrong?
What might happen if we do something, and we were wrong?
Arguing alone has the same consequences, the same risks, as doing nothing, and that's the way of the deniers.
This is called false equivalence and is just more propaganda.
Modifying the composition of the earth's atmosphere is high risk.
Not-modifying it is low risk.
To create a dilemma , one requires some problem in the current status quo of the system and so a inherent risk to inaction.
For example, there is risk to heart surgery, I think we would agree on this basic fact.
However, one cannot automatically postulate that there is equal risk to not-heart surgery.
One would need evidence of an actual heart disease of which the heart surgery might mend or mitigate, to start balancing risks (if the heart disease is mild, the surgery maybe higher risk than doing nothing).
Then there is also the costs to consider of the intervention (as resources are scarce). Doctors have a framework for evaluating risk and resource allocation to intervention called "Number Needed to Treat".
Not only is evidence of a problem required (diagnosis) but then there's a bunch of other steps to justify intervention.
At no point is a person with zero-diagnosis or symptoms or other evidence of a medical problem, somehow at sufficient risk of any given disease justifying any given medical intervention.
If there is no evidence of heart disease then performing heart surgery on the basis of simply balancing the risk of no-intervention with intervention and flipping a coin would be criminal.
In the case of the climate, there is zero evidence the climate had some problem our intervention of billions of tons of carbon a year might fix.
Modifying the system in an uncontrolled experiment on the entire earth-life system is completely insane to say that not-doing-that would be of equal risk to consider.
Laissez-faire, doing nothing, carries a risk.
Doing something (about CO[sub]2[/sub], deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, population growth, renewability, whatever) may or may not carry a different risk.
What's the worst that can happen? Say, if we start actually addressing climate change? Would that (oddly) be worse than doing nothing? Say, is a cleaner environment bad somehow? :brow:
That's an assessment we can't just ignore, regardless of what the deniers say, and they'd have us do nothing, thus ignoring a considerable risk.
Doing nothing would be not-modifying the earth's atmosphere.
Modifying the earth's atmosphere is called radical intervention in the earth-life system.
That Western economics call this radical intervention "laissez-faire" is because they are mostly propagandists due to cold war political intervention in academia (no "laissez-faire" approach to that hot button issue -- and they're damn proud of it!).
And, it's not even a laissez-faire situation even according to their own propaganda, as subsidies to the fossil industry is not laissez-faire but market intervention.
The process of dumping billions of tons of carbon and other pollutants along with more direct destruction of the ecosystems is not some baseline "no intervention" in the earth system.
It is continuous and radical intervention that is inherently high risk compared to actual ecological "laissez faire" policy which would be preserving the pre-industrial economy, or even pre-agriculture economy, or even pre-fire economy, depending on how you want to define interventions in the global earth-life system.
(my bad, thought it was clear enough, but should have been more explicit)
I really don't think we are.
You're saying modifying business as usual is some comparable inherent risk to modifying the earth's atmosphere, that is prima facie balanced somehow and we need equal consideration of both risks.
You simply use a euphemism of "doing nothing" to represent business as usual, in a pretty obvious attempt to trick others into your false-balance-framework or then trick even yourself.
I'm pretty sure we understand each other very well, and are using and understanding the "verbiage" as each means it to.
Having recently experienced a philosophy forum pile on which included you, I'm going to speak up and declare your approach wrong, unfair, and quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish, and I'm strongly opposed. Let's not do that.
If someone is clearly denying climate change, fine, let's pile on. If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that.
There's no harm in discussing it. We are discussing it in my thread. Josh already put up a quote from an MIT reviewed article from a scientist who disagrees with you.
You've been continuously abusive. I've made a normal request in the face of your accusation. You can't engage in good faith. I'm ignoring you from here out.
I have come to the (easy) conclusion that you are here to disinform people. Personally i see CC disinformation spreading as a crime against humanity. So I think you should be banned from TPF, if not hanged up.
We cannot afford for you to eat meat at every meal any more.
Some of the cities enjoying population boom are among those gripped by a ferocious heatwave and seeing record temperatures
Oliver Milman, The Guardian, Wed 20 Jul 2022 10.00 BST
The ferocious heatwave that is gripping much of the US south and west has highlighted an uncomfortable, ominous trend – people are continuing to flock to the cities that risk becoming unlivable due to the climate crisis.
Some of the fastest-growing cities in the US are among those being roasted by record temperatures that are baking more than 100 million Americans under some sort of extreme heat warning. More than a dozen wildfires are engulfing areas from Texas to California and Alaska, with electricity blackouts feared for places where the grid is coming under severe strain.
San Antonio, Texas, which added more to its population than any other US city in the year to July 2021, has already had more than a dozen days over 100F this summer and hit 104F on Tuesday.
Phoenix, Arizona, second on the population growth rankings compiled by the US census, also hit 104F on Tuesday and has suffered a record number of heat-related deaths this year. Meanwhile, Fort Worth, Texas, third on the population growth list, has a “red flag” warning in place amid temperatures that have reached 109F this week.
Cities that stretch across the “sun belt” of the southern and south-western US have in recent years enjoyed population booms, with people lured by the promise of cheap yet expansive properties, warm winters and plentiful jobs, with several large corporations shifting their bases to states with low taxes and cheaper cost of living.
But this growth is now clashing with the reality of the climate emergency, with parts of the sun belt enduring the worst drought in more than 1,000 years, record wildfires and punishing heat that is triggering a range of medical conditions, as well as excess deaths.
“There’s been this tremendous amount of growth and it’s come with a cost,” said Jesse Keenan, an expert in climate adaption at Tulane University. Keenan pointed out that since the 1990s several states have gutted housing regulations to spur development that has now left several cities, such as in Scottsdale, Arizona, struggling to secure enough water to survive.
“The deregulation is really catching up with communities and they are paying that price today,” Keenan said. “We are seeing places run out of water, no proper subdivision controls to ensure there are enough trees to help lower the heat, and lots of low-density suburbs full of cars that create air pollution that only gets worse in hot weather. We’ve reached a crunch point.”
The sprawl of concrete for new housing, mostly within unspooling suburbs rather than contained in dense, walkable neighborhoods, has helped heighten temperatures in many of these growing cities. The spread of hard surfaces has also led to flash flooding, as Houston found to its cost during the devastating Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
Some cities have attempted to respond to the rising temperatures by planting trees, which help cool the surrounding area, and provide emergency centers where people can cool down, but these efforts are often piecemeal and underfunded, according to Sara Meerow, an expert in urban planning at Arizona State University.
“The extreme heat that cities are experiencing now is caused by a combination of climate change and the urban heat island effect,” Meerow said. “Rapid urban expansion, which means more impervious surfaces like roads and buildings and waste heat from cars and buildings, typically exacerbates the urban heat island effect, which means these cities are even hotter.”
As the US, like the rest of the world, continues to heat up, the climate crisis should become more of a factor when choosing a place to live, with retirees already starting to shun Arizona, traditionally a favored spot for older transplants, according to Keenan.
“We are looking at increased premature mortality, even increased diabetes because of dehydration, cardiac impacts and so on,” he said. “Mortgage lenders are starting to look at the risks of lending for somewhere that doesn’t have a water supply, as that’s not a good investment. Capital markets are getting wise to this stuff.
“We are seeing the limits to growth and housing affordability and the impacts of poor-quality decision making of where and how to build. We are paying the price for all that now.”
Capital markets are wise enough to build a facility and entice us with the promise of jobs to take out mortgages on places they know full well are going to become worthless and uninhabitable. "We" will be taught to think it our own folly and to trust the wisdom of the market. Again.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/sowing-hunger-reaping-profits-report.pdf
:up:
This is not some sort of safe space for your ego, where your arguments and intentions should be protected from scrutiny.
"Arguing" against your positions is not a "forum pile", it's called debate.
Real intellectual debate is a rational framework for an emotional contest.
Always has been.
This particular forum, by the grace of the mods, is for people who want to actually test their beliefs, argumentation, justifications against the most brutal scrutiny that the internet can muster.
Some of us have not only been here for years, engaging in good faith and sharpening our whits, but were also inhabitants of the previous forum (just "philosophyforum") which was far more rigorous (for various reasons) and essentially serves as this forum's Hades. A dark mysterious nether realm from which have sprung some monsters of the deep.
Why expect submitting your beliefs and argumentation skills to actual scrutiny to be a pleasant experience where the rules should be set to allow you to at least "tie"?
There is no reason, especially if the truth is of any value.
You only expect this because echo chambers built to maintain your belief system operate in this way, but here is not an echo chamber: anyone can participate defending any point of view, attacking any point of view.
Some people here have been following or even working on the climate change issue for years and decades.
You "pop in" to insult our knowledge, tell us to get up to speed.
When your knowledge is demonstrated to be delusional (by reference to actual evidence), you then feel insulted, claim I'm "quasi-spanish-inquisition-McCarthyish" ... for participating in open debate, free exchange of ideas, not coercing anyone to utter or believe anything by some government force, but simply making my case in the public forum?
Quoting Tate
The problem with your arguments is that it does not "widen" our understanding, but is simply wrong.
Increased CO2 emissions more than compensate orbital insolation changes on any relevant time scale. There is zero risk of an ice age happening anytime soon.
Whether you're conscious of it or not, your comments are simply a reflection of the new phase in climate denialism which is to down-play the dangers, muddy the waters, try to paint real analysis as somehow lacking using platitudes and truisms that easily confuse the gullible and (in particular) people who want to engage in magical thinking and believe the situation isn't so bad or then will right itself.
For example, in one single sentence you seem to agree we should reduce our CO2 emissions, but even there it is subtle propaganda in using the word "prudent" rather than "necessary to avoid total disaster". Prudent connotes an over abundance of caution, and is not even necessarily a virtue. A "prudent" person may also miss out on opportunities by avoiding risks.
Framing CO2 reductions as "prudent" impresses upon the mind of the conservative idiot that the outcome is not near-certain and maybe the risks discussed would not be realised in business as usual scenario.
For example, it is prudent to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but forgoing a helmet in no way guarantees a brain injury. Indeed, a brain injury is not even very probable if one is a skilled biker that is unlikely to crash.
The situation with carbon emissions is that of a heroin junky taking more and more heroin each trip. It is not merely prudent to stop taking more and more heroin, it is necessary for survival. The probability of being able to survive heroin doses far in excess of anything anyone has survived before is negligible for decision making.
It is not "prudent" to stop CO2 emissions, it is necessary for survival of most people and most species, and a moral imperative.
A recent internet commentator described this new batch of denialism flooding the brain waves as "lukewarmists", which is a good description, but it also still just plain ol' denialism, muddying the waters, and the denial is the actual state of the climate and consequences.
"I don't deny climate change, just all this other stuff so as to result in the same inaction, same as before," is not somehow wriggling out of the denialism (to then participate as some moral and intellectual equal worthy of respect), it is just updating the denialist strategy to the fact everyone can see the consequences of climate change now and it's no longer effective to straight up claim it's not happening (people can see it's happening), so the next best thing is to downplay the consequences, peddle fantasies such as the ice age cycle may "save the day!" based on a total delusional understanding of the climate, but with a few techno-babble words thrown in to impress the gullible.
All your points, their content, how they are presented, trying to undermine people who do know what they are talking about ... while also claiming to be on the same team of wanting to reduce emissions? Is all just repeating propaganda: either intentionally or then as a useful idiot to propagandists who created all these talking points.
Propaganda is not good faith intellectual debate: it deserves no respect, no invitation, no empathy, and no quarter on the fields of whit.
It is academics, politicians, activists, organisers, journalists, who were otherwise good faith, pandering to propaganda and trying to "meet them half way" so at least "something is done", is what got us to the current crisis in the first place.
For, the propagandists were also selling what environmentalists wanted to believe as well: things aren't so bad.
:death:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1553417991408308226[/tweet]
Hot summers in the Mediterranean area.
North America is less affected here (temperature).
Jun-Aug is winter in the Southern Hemisphere.
EDIT: link is: https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1553417991408308226
We have reached 45 C? the month before... it was so damn disgusting and tiresome
Nevertheless:
This bill will apparently get us close— but still isn’t enough. Question is: does this over or under estimate the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act?
With the additions of fossil fuel leasing, it’s hard to say.
We need to spend about 3% of GDP to really fight global warming. That’s about $700 billion a year. (US GDP is about 23 trillion).
That’s about what we spend on the pentagon every year (viz., corporate America— Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc., which mostly goes to shareholders and CEOs) — in other words, straight to the pockets of the 0.01%. Nice taxpayer gifts to the rich, who in turn give the bloated military more planes they don’t need.
This bill spends $38.5 billion a year instead. Which is an absolute joke. It’s about 6% of what we should be spending. The gimmick is that they stretch it out over ten years and say it’s “385 billion” that they’re spending. Funny how they don’t do this with the military. If they did, we spend 7.5 trillion on the military.
Military: $7,500,000,000,000.
Climate: $385,000,000,000.
The suggestion that this bill gets us to 40% from 2005 level emissions is interesting. If true, it goes only to show how much we’re failing to do so much more. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
(And of course my country hasn't gotten warmer in the summer.)
It should not be cold in Antarctica in winter (June-August)?
It's colder there now than it was in 1970 (in the Antarctic winter).
Point being, this image says little about the antarctic. Overall, temperatures in Antarctica are increasing well above the global mean.
It's kind of hard to judge from that picture. Some of the cold spots appear to be off the coast, which would make me think the ocean is colder in those spots due to melting glaciers, except why would glaciers be melting in the winter?
Do you have a source that says that overall temps in Antarctica are warmer? I'm not contesting the point. I've just been hoovering up good sources lately.
And why are the southern oceans generally cooler? That's weird.
Google scholar, yes. Regular Google is useless. Nature is also good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/05/world/australia/climate-change-bill.html
Sounds familiar. But it’s still some progress.
If I understood the picture correctly, the places were colder than average. And I've heard this argument that climate change can also make some places colder and rainier, but it's not naturally a topic discussed with climate change.
For example, if the warming stops the Gulf Stream, the climate in my country will transform more to be like the climate of Alaska. :sad:
Or potentially like this:
Another logical consequence of warming:
It's possible. I don't know the probability. I don't think anyone does.
Source?
Do you have any more disingenuous questions or is that it?
Climatologists do speak with such confidence, just not in their scientific papers. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html
So stop your obfuscation in a misplaced attempt to think you're trying to do science.
If you glance at my thread, I posted a paper that says we may have already passed a trigger point for reglaciation. It's the one that says the Anthropocene started about 6000 years ago.
Next up will be a proposed solution to the 100,000 year problem, which was not addressed in any long range model up to now. It suggests that shutdown of the thermohaline circulation has been triggering reglaciation, not just a minima of insolation in the Northern Hemisphere. Since the thermohaline is slowing now, this means reglaciation is in the cards.
Hey, you asked. :grin:
Could be. Or it could be next year. We don't have a crystal ball.
Paywall restricted.
The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.
Welcome to 2022.
Quoting Xtrix
No, if everyone acts right now.
Quoting Xtrix
No one is acting right now and just now reports are made that the arctic is warming four times faster than predicted.
Quoting Xtrix
That would require a lot of neoliberals having absolute power to push industries not complying with climate goals.
Quoting Xtrix
- Global ban on the production of fossil fuel transportation vehicles from 2030 at the latest.
- Global financial support to people buying electric cars. The more effective the car and sustainable production of those cars, the more financial support.
- Global ban on coal, gas, and other fossil fuel power plants.
- Global government investment into battery research and tech to create power storage solutions
- Global government support for homeowners to install battery technology for automatic power storage management.
- Global government investment in the installation of city-wide solar panels on the majority of roofs.
- Global global initiative for Thorium power plants before fusion is solved or solar panels efficiency reaches viable levels.
- Carbon neutral industry changes (like carbon neutral steel production in Sweden)
- Global government limitations on food production and fishing to sustain the ecological balance, mainly coral reef and algae (since they soak up as much CO2 as the Amazons)
- Global limitation on air travel, maybe even customer limitations to restrict km/year traveled by air.
- Global ban on the oil and coal industry lobbying-money getting into governments, i.e fossil fuel industries cannot "bribe" themselves into being safe from restrictions.
- Global government investment in companies who work on sustainable solutions, for example, Tesla.
- Global "green city" architectural requirements in order to plant more trees and plants integrated with city infrastructure and environments.
- Local food production initiatives, including insect farms as a protein source.
- Meat tax that goes straight back to meat production to push sustainable levels of production and lower numbers of animals in the chain. Part of it also goes to lab-grown meat research and development.
- Increased penalty for people starting wildfires, i.e maximum sentence, life in prison. The consequences of such crimes are too severe for the entire world and in areas with drought. It will become an annual problem that will escalate. Governments also need to demand land owners have counter-measures in place, if not, penalties or risk of losing their land.
- Penalize anti-climate-research speech (climate deniers), and classify it the same as hate speech in order to block the spread of misinformation and disinformation (yes, this thing is too serious to warrant any free speech bullshit arguments to protect some uneducated morons who won't even survive to see the consequences of their actions).
To name a few
Quoting Xtrix
Republicans and similar people in other nations. General conspiracy nutcases. Boomers who are stuck in conservative bullshit and are too fragile to accept change. Millennials who are too occupied with their own narcissism and ego to let anything distract them from upholding a perfect image of a successful life. Gen Z's too hypnotized by TikTok during their development to be able to have a normal working brain that isn't too distracted by dopamine deficiency and the inability to stay on topic for more than 2 seconds.
I would say that the problem isn't people who actively work against fixing this, but the ones who ignore even trying to. Those are the majority and those people could change the world in an instant.
Or a failure to function as a rational person. A rational person does not stick to their guns when the opposite has been proven, because they see through the normal bias others are slaves to.
It's not irrational to question the prevailing view. It's how we grow our body of knowledge.
There's a difference between questioning a prevailing view and irrational questioning out of group think and biases, especially if the bias is highly politically driven or based on emotional instability.
The problem in the world today is that too many think their opinion or knowledge matters regardless of how informed that opinion or knowledge is. The narcissism of today has cluttered discussions on any topic, introducing noise of irrelevant bullshit because people think just expressing an opinion is just as valid as expressing an informed opinion. It's the jealousy by common folks towards informed people that have created a world where informed people are regarded as some low-class annoyance and the ignorance rising due to this as people shut their ears off and instead start to believe that their own opinion has the same value as informed people's opinions is seriously damaging to the planet and the quality of life in general.
Since politics always focus on the lowest common denominator we now have a world where expert opinions get ignored and uninformed bullshit gets promoted.
We don't grow a body of knowledge in this environment before we return to a better established hierarchy of knowledge. Where informed people, education, experts, and actual facts are handled with care and dignity. When actual rationality and wisdom are regarded as virtue again.
It's the path of taking adequate epistemic responsibility. Knowing when to shut up and not express an opinion is just as rational and morally responsible as making informed questioning of a broadly accepted idea.
I couldn't agree more.
I posted this in the "glaciation" thread:
Quoting Janus
This explains very clearly the problems involved with trying to de-carbonize rapidly.
Oh oh. Put on your mask when flying through those clouds of sulfuric acid.
Quoting Janus
I agree. Best to do what we can, and prepare for the inevitable. If I were to be around for the next couple of hundred years I suspect Colorado will become like current day Las Vegas environment, largely vacated as people pack up and move to Canada. Miami may survive as a kind of Venice.
Agreed, we will still get a world drastically changed then how it was. For example, we will have annual heat waves of upwards of 45 degrees celsius in Europe based on the current progression, but if we fail to mitigate further it could end up being 50-55 degrees as peaks. Such high temperatures will be like someone putting a magnifying glass over the lands and burning a scar through Europe. Not to mention how it will be in places like Iraq, where heat waves already peaks at 50 degrees celsius.
Quoting Janus
Not if there's a collective threat happening. We will not see collaboration until we seriously get to experience the first consequences. We've already seen how a large portion of politicians and the general public have shifted into grasping the magnitude of the dangers of global warming through this summer's heat wave. And with worse and worse heat waves, more drought, more fires, and unstable weather and storms as a follow-up, I think we will see better universal cooperation when climate refugees, food supply energy problems, heat wave deaths, houses destroyed in storms, and so on gets worse. Humanity won't do anything until they have a gun to their head.
Quoting Janus
This is the problem with representative democracy in a time when we have more demagogues than actual politicians. They do anything to keep their power and the public is too stupid, too uneducated or easily fooled by people with power over them to be able to vote for something of actual value and win that over. This is why the general public needs to experience a catastrophe before they would vote for politicians that focus on actual solutions.
Let the people burn and then they might want to fix the problem. :shade:
Quoting Janus
The problem is that innovation doesn't get enough funding. There are teenagers inventing water cheap water filtration systems that were earlier not invented because there wasn't much economic incentive to do so. There is a lot of innovation going on in the energy sector that gets so little funding that they cannot come into volume production or into collaboration with other technologies. All while strategies are formed based on previous volume-produced solutions.
But here's the interesting question to everyone.
Yes, it's a problem. But can we cope with it on the short-to-medium time range?
Yes.
And here do note I'm talking about coping with the problem, not solving it. Because that I think we as humanity will do. People should understand the difference between coping and solving something.
I think we can fare better than any people in history before us. Especially in the West we are so prosperous that having to make dramatic changes out of necessity will not collapse our societies. When our environment radically changes around us, we can adapt.
Southern California is one example: Even without climate change, it would be basically a desert environment just as Baja California, but moving rivers has made it what it is now. So if it, thanks to climate change, would go back to an environment like Mexico, could people still live there?
Yes.
Would the society collapse? No.
People live in Mexico. A lot of people do live in environment that basically are or would be deserts.
And this is actually quite a scary thought: even if we really fuck it up with our response to climate change, if we really don't come up with real solutions, we will surely come up with something and it's not the richest nations that are going to hell in handbasket, we will just go where things suck for us. Yet our societies aren't on the verge of collapse with threats of civil war (or those already going on). The real victims are those societies that are there already. We'll cope with our mediocre watered down solutions.
Yes. What I've been wondering for decades is whether civilization will survive the next 10,000 years. I feel broken hearted imagining that we're living at the end of an age, but on the bright side, it would give other lifeforms a break.
How exactly do you think the problem of climate change came about?
The future for the next 10,000 years isn't our problem. Or to put it correctly, doesn't happen because of just our generations.
Quoting Isaac
We understand that our actions do have an effect on the World, @Isaac. How many other living creatures/species have understood that?
To understand that is really important.
I don't look at it as a moral challenge. It's about the fate of a species I've come to love.
Well, just look at what we have done in the last 2000 years. In good and bad. So I guess to worry what will happen to us in the next 10,000 years is a bit grandiose.
Uh, ok.
Your talent for for the irrelevant is impressive.
Why are you telling me this?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/20/world/rivers-lakes-drying-up-drought-climate-cmd-intl/index.html :eyes: :mask:
“If we face this problem head on, if we listen to our best scientists, and act decisively and passionately— I still don’t see any way we can survive.”
:lol:
I would recommend you spend more time with counter-arguments. This one in particular is very old and, in my view, long refuted. Unless you're saying that warming isn't completely due to human activity and that nature is involved somehow -- which is a truism.
The rate of warming we see is not due to natural variation. This is well established. A graphic display of the data is helpful -- it's undeniable. It's warming at an alarming pace, and it's doing so because of human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.
So I'm not seeing your point here.
Indeed a graph is indeed helpful.
For people that are unsure what to make of it:
We breaking out of an over 2 million year pattern that nearly all complex species and ecosystems are currently adapted too, the pace of change is also unprecedented, going into the complete climate unknown.
But to make matters worse, even though there are large up's and downs with glaciation and inter-glacial periods (within a long term pattern ecosystems are adapted to), the pace of change of these glaciations and inter-glacials is about 1 degree per 1000 years at the fastest, resulting in steep but still noticeable slopes on 800 000 year time line ... whereas today it is vertical line.
So, not only are we going somewhere we really don't want to go, we're going there faster than the climate has ever shifted in millions of years.
To make matters worse, in the previous glacial-interglacial shifts, nothing came along and "softened up" the ecosystems causing wide spread damage before and during the relatively gentle temperature rise or decrease, so ecosystems were at their full capacity to deal with the (extremely slow, relative to today) change.
We are running 2 global climate experiments while at the same time just straight up destroying ecosystems directly with logging, fishing, agriculture, urban sprawl, damning, pollution of all sorts.
Why is that called then a global warming? If CO2 is human-related, and the temperature does not rise, to me the only conclusion you can draw is that human activity does not make the temperature rise.
Look at the graphs. It is a clear, unambiguous depiction. CO2 rises, temperature does not.
Look at it again, if you don't believe me. The brown line (CO2 concentration) increases 30 percent, the blue line (temperature) remains at the same level.
I mean, I did not even have to hunt for a graph or anything to shoot your argument down. You presented this graph which destroys your own argument.
I think you guys just shot yourselves in the foot.
If you look at the historic cycle, you're seeing the temperature leading the CO2 change. When the oceans cool, they absorb more CO2, and same thing for warming.
The last lead up to the present is showing the opposite: CO2 rise first, and then temperature will follow. There's a delay between CO2 emission and temperature rise.
The way we know we've already altered the climate isn't from looking at that kind of graph. It's from computer modeling that predicts what the temperature would be now without the CO2 we've put up. Still, some scientists argue there could have been other causes, but they're in the minority at this point.
:gasp: :rofl:
Yes, so I guess we can throw out all that consensus— you’ve discovered something all the world’s experts have missed. Please take your discovery to a local climatology department and explain to them that clearly human activity isn’t affecting climate change.
Or you could stop and think for three seconds about whether your statements are ignorant and embarrassing. Your choice.
Just a result from a quick Google search about the relationship between CO2 and temperature:
___
Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?
The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
___________
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
So that’s the last time I take you seriously I guess. Oh well.
Who are "workers"?
That's precisely my point. Global warming had become and has been heavily politicized. And in its drag it politicized science.
Now we look for data that serve a political movement. Not in the service of truth.
So all the people who blame humanity ALONE for the global warming are nothing but puppets of a political game and they themselves are so absorbed in it, that they don't realize that reality has not been captured yet.
The minority scientists could be wrong, or the majority. At this point all we know is that there is no definite theory that gets complete buy-in; the consensus is of the majority, not of the entirety; and it serves a political purpose which skews the scientific finding's meaning. Furthermore, the politicization has bent minds as well, who swear by a definitive explanation that is not at all necessarily the truth.
There's some truth to that. Zealotry has set in, and yet scientists are as free as they ever were to investigate.
Quoting god must be atheist
We don't usually require 100% buy-in before we accept scientific consensus. Hundreds of scientists the world over have looked at the question and come up with the same answer: we're changing the climate.
Who are "we"?
Quoting Tate
Not quite. Scientific research requires a lot of money. Money comes from political sources. I think you know where this is heading. Scientists are NOT free to investigate as they wish.
All sorts of people, but mainly engineers.
Quoting god must be atheist
Well if that's true, we're hopelessly in the dark about pretty much everything. Let's go back to the Stone Age and start over.
This is meaningful only if you know the number of scientists who have also looked the question and come up with a different answer. Without supplying that number, the "hundreds" alone is completely not indicative of anything.
You're turning into an Xtrix with your snide remark and ignoring my arguments, rendering them moot by assuming they are ridiculously stupid. They are not.
Quoting Tate
Yes, we are!! I am not arguing that. I am arguing that there is or might be natural forces that are precipitating this change, and that the global warming is not created by man alone.
Of course I have no data or theory to back this up. It is complete conjecture on my part. But there are scientists -- like you said -- who have conducted research and say the same thing.
Ok.
You were quite right in determining that temperature change (historically) determined the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The remarkable thing I wish to point out here is that SOMETHING precipitated the temperature change. It became an accelerated process; the cooler, the less CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer, the more CO2, and the CO2 concentration also helped in the cooling and heating process. But the change in direction was never a function of the effect of the CO2 concentration. SOMETHING ELSE effected it.
Do we know what that something else was? this is not a rhetorical question; please, Tate, if you care, tell me just the fact whether we know what that force of heat energy sink or source was.
If we know what it was, then we can look for it in today's world.
If we don't know what it was, then we can't be so sure that it's not acting right now.
This actually a empirical evidence to support my theory that global warming is not purely man-made. And without your graph I would not have discovered this evidence.
Another way to look at it is that temperature did change over time. If it were only a function of CO2 concentration, in an accelerated process, the slope of the curve of temperature would never change from up to down, and from down to up as we proceed left to right on the timeline. Yet it does.
This is clear indication that there are forces other than man-made that make global warming and cooling.
Since these forces exist, and whether we know their nature or origin or not, we CAN'T RULE THEM OUT AS ACTIVE FORCES, AND RENDER THEM TO BE MERE IMPOTENT BYSTANDERS IN THE CHANGE WE EXPERIENCE AND MEASURE TODAY.
Yes, Xtrix, make fun of my choice of words. You are so good at snide remarks and ridiculing others, while your thinking capacity is, in my opinion, seriously lagging and lacking. You should be a journalist, not a philosopher, because at the latter, my friend, you suck, if you ask me.
Yes. The Earth's axis wobbles. It goes around in a circle over a period of about 41,000 years. There are times when the axial position points the northern hemisphere further away from the sun. Under the right conditions, this will initiate glaciation due to build-up of ice which reflects light back out to space. Then the oceans cool and absorb CO2, cooling things down even further. All of this is possible because we're in a large scale ice age characterized by oceanic currents that allow "deep water.". This is water that never comes to the surface and so it stays cold, cooling the surface.
Another factor is the Earth's orbit, which is sometimes elliptical, and sometimes more circular.
Quoting god must be atheist
They know about those factors, but there are still unknowns.
Quoting god must be atheist
Of course. The Earth's climate changes all the time because of natural forces. It wouldn't just stay the way it is now whether we influence it or not.
My counterpoint: in the past global warming and cooling were caused by non-man-made activities. Those global heat energy producing or reducing forces could still be working today. We don't know what effected them, and what the forces were; so we are not at a liberty by logical and scientific thought to dismiss those forces as not being a part of today's global climate change.
The carbon dioxide effect is huge, as per the sudden unprecedented increase of carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. But it is not an infinitely progressing increase. It will level off somewhere, hopefully at a spot that causes temperatures and climates that still allow biological life forms to survive, and human beings to survive.
After all, if the climate becomes a killer, then human population will quickly decrease, and some surviving members will not produce an ever-increasing number of CO2 molecules; these people may be high-ranking government officials, men and women, and their spouses, who hide and survive in bunkers.
The flora will thrive in the hot, carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere. They will turn the excess carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and fibres, sugar.
Sooner or later the climate returns to the temperate behaviour that supports complex life.
Correct
Quoting god must be atheist
We do know what the forces were. I just described it to you.
Scientists don't expect human extinction to take place due to global warming.
Quoting god must be atheist
That's correct. That's already started happening. The earth is getting greener.
My impression was that you said the causes we suspect are insufficient in explaining the phenomenon. This leads me to believe that there were forces other than wobbling and deep water currents. Your kind explanation was clear on that. So the statement "we do know what those forces were", is, I am sorry, false.
Maybe, but I am going by the clip on the Video displayed on the top of this page. That, as far as I can see it, predicts human extinction. That's why I brought this up.
This is what the official opinion is, as I read it (thanks to Xtrix for the contribution) Quoting Xtrix
That's true, but it's like we're collecting puzzle pieces. We don't have all of them yet.
Quoting god must be atheist
True.
If so, it's bullshit.
I just hoped to have found someone on this site who listens to reason instead of just arguing the current the scientific trends that are in vogue.
Alrighty then.
When you heat up coke/pepsi, the CO[sub]2[/sub] bubbles out!
Things happen in a bathtub, too.
World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency (Global Climate Intelligence Group; Jun 27, 2022)
Haven't had a chance to go over it though.
Anyone?
It’s a list of names of self-appointed climate deniers. Useful for a future class action perhaps?
:lol:
Do you prefer Pepsi or Coke for bubble baths? Diet or regular?
( or whoever knows climate stuff well)
Their justification is more or less ...
Quoting THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY (Jun 27, 2022)
"Don't Panic" and letting science speak with minimal bias. :up:
The "no evidence" claim seems a bit sketchy. (I'm not up to date on the latest, though.)
As far as climate models go, the scientists do the best they can; declaring that known limitations means no effect or no concern would be a non sequitur.
The "CO[sub]2[/sub]" and "adaptation" comments seem to confirm anthropogenic climate effects (otherwise somewhat or partially irrelevant, the exercise isn't just to provide breathing air for plants).
From there to declaring "There is no climate emergency" isn't quite justified, premature, well, unless the real message is "Don't Panic".
Think we can burn millions of years of accumulated fossil fuels in a century or two without noticeable effects? :down: [sup]• What are fossil fuels? (Jul 2010), • If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change? (Jul 2017), • Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit? (Jun 2020), • Burning of fossil fuels (Mar 2022), • The Causes of Climate Change (Jul 2022)[/sup]
Is there reason for concern? Yes.
There are other parts of the equation, like deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, biodiversity, population growth, renewability, ...
Weigh best- and worst-case scenarios?
Assess appropriate adaptation and mitigation efforts?
I prefer to make my own bubbles. Sorry.
There's not much CO2 in that.
Experts Debunk Viral Post Claiming 1,100 Scientists Say ‘There’s No Climate Emergency’
Let me clue you in: scientists the world over have indeed taken into account natural variation and natural phenomena. The rate of change we see is due to human activity -- namely, deforestation and the burning of fossils fuels releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Not complicated. Nothing political about it. No one is saying human activity "alone" accounts for everything. It accounts for the rate of change we're seeing, as is obvious from the graphs already given alone.
You have it backwards: the reason why anyone would be compelled to deny this or suddenly get "skeptical" about the consensus is for political reasons -- not scientific ones. That makes you more of a puppet for the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign than anything else. Or you're just incredibly ignorant.
Quoting god must be atheist
A climate denial talking point. More conspiracy theories.
So the overwhelming evidence is faked because scientists get government funding...so that the governments can take over the world by pushing for green energy. Makes perfect sense.
Quoting god must be atheist
"Created by man alone" is a bullshit statement so you can weasel out of an embarrassing argument. "Natural forces" have been accounted for. The rate of warming we see is due to human activity.
Here's a tip: whatever you view as a discovery -- i.e., a hole in the "theory" -- stop for a few seconds and ask yourself if perhaps this has been thought of by people who have studied the issue their entire lives. Then do a quick google search to see what they say about it. You'll find answers. Do that BEFORE making a fool of yourself on the internet.
Quoting god must be atheist
Who? Where are their publications? Who are they? I can think of a handful of oil-funded scientists who are a laughingstock in the science community and have been debunked over and over again...do they count? Is that really what you're referring to?
Why anyone would go with these idiots over the overwhelming evidence is beyond me -- unless for political reasons, which is usually the answer.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yes, we can and we do. Volcanoes, clouds, water vapor, Earth's trajectory, etc. To bring you up to speed: this has been studied for a long time by people called climatologists.
Quoting god must be atheist
Your choice of words? No -- your ignored and arrogance.
Yes, MY thinking capacity is "seriously lagging and lacking," says the guy who thinks he's cracked the case of climate change all by himself. "We can't rule out natural forces!" True, I don't know how else to deal with this other than ridicule. I think it's appropriate when it comes to such pomposity.
And I never claimed to be a "philosopher," nor do I want to be.
And you wonder why you get ridiculed. I guess I'll do the work for you:
Now stop here and ask yourself whether you still believe scientists haven't considered "natural forces." Maybe -- just maybe -- they have considered just that, for the last 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years or so...
Or you can go on believing you're onto something they've all missed. Again, your choice.
Anyway -- to continue:
I'll leave you to read the rest. Interesting stuff for those actually curious about climate science.
How We Know Today's Climate Change is Not Natural
You're embarrassingly silly. That video is from the TV program called "The Newsroom". I posted it because I thought it was funny -- notice the little laughing emoji at the bottom?
Of course, like most climate deniers, you show up believing that climate "alarmism" is a problem, and thus you're so quick to jump at any opportunity to "refute" it that you failed to even notice any of this. Not surprised.
You are being unnatural. I am not a climate denier. I am just saying that the climate change is not entirely due to human activity.
There are too many holes in your arguments. It gives me a headache to think I would need to correct you in each one of them. Am I getting paid for that? No.
You are emotional and hence irrational. You call me a climate denier. You say that because you equate my dissent to being a denier. You are full of misplaced rage and anger and confusion. You are a fanatic of the worst kind. A person who can't see beyond his nose and realize what is being said truly, you just feel the rage and anger and confusion consume you, so you need to find a scape goat to take it out on... and it's someone who says something that you misinterpret and bring up irrelevant arguments against, because in your anger your judgment got impaired, and you immediately latch labels on him, and want to see his blood flow.
At one point you swore to not reply to me and to ignore my input on these pages. Why could you not stick to your promise? You even break your own word. I am not a climate denier and you are inconsistent with what you promise.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/carbon-dioxide-d_974.html
specific heat of carbon dioxide at 300K is 0.846 units.
https://whatsinsight.org/specific-heat-of-air/
specific heat of air at 300K is 1.005 units.
If under constant pressure the specific heat of air is higher than the specific heat of co2, then the increase of CO2 concentration will drive the specific heat of air DOWN, not UP.
Therefore the CO2 increase in air is NOT conducive to global warming.
If you don't understand the physics here, please ask and don't make irrelevant claims.
No matter what Xtrix claims, I am NOT DENYING climate change or global warming.
The physics says, however, that it's not due to CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Therefore the CO2 increase and the global aveage temperature increase are coincidental, not causally related.
No arguments.
But the increase in average temperature of the globe's atmosphere is undeniable.
Therefore, since the cause is not carbon dioxide increase, the cause must be something else.
Which I have advocated from the first minute.
Your incapacity with logic is alarming. Here you agree humans DO have an impact. You just want to question how much.
But if there is a natural cause of warming as well, then that simply says humans would have to do even more to mitigate climate change by now cutting back even harder on carbon.
Use that Mensa brain of yours. It isn’t difficult to figure out. The more the natural background warning, the more we then have to do ourselves.
I really, but really wish you guys would not use logical fallacies.
Here's my claim again, and please DO NOT READ INTO IT ANYTHIING THAT IS NOT THERE. I ask you because this is a philosophy forum, and we have to stick to the rules of philosophy.
My claim: Global warming is happening. Climate change is happening. These changes are not entirely due to human-created causes.
End of my claim.
Understood? Please don't put words in my mouth I have not said. Please don't assume things I MUST think according to your fantasy life, and then claim that your fantasy is reality.
That’s only because your logic doesn’t follow itself to its own conclusions. But keep raving.
Quoting god must be atheist
Maybe I missed this but do you have a science-backed view about whether the background natural trend is in the warming or cooling direction?
No climate scientist disputes there is natural variation. Back in the 1960s, the most likely scenario was taken as that we were overdue for a return to a glacial, for instance.
But again I return to the logic of a position in which natural causes indeed contribute added change in one or other direction.
It is either the case that nature is warming, and therefore we humans need to cut our own climate contribution even more sharply as nature isn’t going to help us out here.
Or nature is cooling, and thus the fact we are already seeing such a sharp increase in warming means our human contribution is even more potent than we think - and so again we have to cut back harder.
Give us the benefit of your mighty Mensa brain and tell us how these conclusions might be in error?
This is evidence only of your ignorance of very basic science. Specific heat is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of a substance, usually measured in units of joules of energy per kilogram per degree centigrade. Thus the lower the specific heat, the higher the temperature that will be achieved by the absorption of a given amount of radiant energy.
But this has exactly nothing to do with the insulating effect of CO2 which rather depends on its transparency to higher frequency radiation and relative opacity to infra red. The suns rays penetrate the atmosphere easily to heat the ground that absorbs them, but the heat is reradiated as infra red which is more absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus the 'greenhouse effect' is more of a 'duvet effect' preventing heat loss.
I am interested if you can shed any light on your own motivation for rooting out such 'scientific facts' that you clearly have no understanding of, in order to support a contrarian position you are incapable of making a meaningful judgement of? Apart from the hubris of imagining that scientists have no idea what they are doing, such that your 30 second google can put us all straight, there must be some reason why this is your focus rather than building a better mousetrap or whatever.
So glass (re greenhouses) is basically CO[sub]2[/sub] solidified. :cool:
Evidence for this could come in the form of temperature rising but being lower than expected for the amount of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere.
I want to point out that this is not the narrative most people are familiar with. Most people think human contributions to climate started 200 years ago, not 2000.
This is one of the many ways the narrative is in flux. I think we should welcome challenges to the official view. In that spirit we have the resilience to live with changing narratives. When we become rigid and treat the science in a religious way, science stands to lose credibility.
I'm sure you agree.
You evidently don't understand the physics here.
If only life were so simple. To start with, the human heating will happen in decades and the natural cooling in millennia. So if you don’t mind first being cooked and then waiting….
But then the cooking is going to be so extreme that it pushes the Earth into some new setting anyway. Do stuff like melt the poles and you might have to wait hundreds of millions of years for ice to start to creep back.
What are you on about? In which narrative could humans be considered responsible for pushing the Earth father from the Sun these past 2000 years?
Quoting Tate
Jeez, not another climate denier who can’t read or think straight.
The problem isn’t with those who have a religious faith in the scientific consensus, it is with idiots who can’t even parse the evidence being presented.
The narrative you quoted says we've been affecting the climate for 2000 years. There's research that says it's actually 6000-8000.
Let's try to stay civil.
What are you on about. The paper is talking about natural cooling due to orbiting distance to the Sun. I pointed your confusion out and yet you still don’t get it.
Quoting apokrisis
I see that. Yes. That the climate has been headed toward an insolation minimum in the Northern Hemisphere is old news. This is the startling part:
See here.
Sure human agriculture and firing of the landscape could have had an effect. So could the still earlier hominid culling of the planet’s megafauna up to 40,000 years ago - although whether this added to net cooling or net heating depends on whether the hit on methane - the loss of megafauna farts - or the loss of snow albedo from increase tree growth made a bigger difference - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502540113
But who cares about ancient history. We know the climate is a balancing act of many factors. The issue here is that it doesn’t matter if nature has some underlying trend going on - unless it is abrupt and imminent. And it doesn’t matter if humans were “guilty” of impacting the world in small ways before the Industrial Age and fossil fuels.
So what exactly is your point? Why are you another one arguing this kind of “whataboutism” designed to suggest that somehow these other things somehow make a difference to the need to react urgently to the current human-caused global heating crisis.
That's it's a virtue to remain flexible. If we've been influencing the climate long enough that we concealed a 2000 year old cooling trend, then cutting down on fossil fuel CO2 emissions, while very important, won't be enough to address the problem. We'll need to start scrubbing at some point if we want to control our affect on the climate. We need a new energy source. It may be that burning fossil fuels to get us to a new energy source and scrubbing technology is more intelligent than just limiting CO2 emissions.
Quoting apokrisis
I'm not a what-about-er. What's clear to me is that we need new perspectives to deal with the issue. Obviously what we're doing now isn't working.
Don't be so dismissive but, yeah, unmanageable complexity is the norm, simplicity is just us daydreamin'.
Yes, which is the latest slogan of climate denial. "The climate is always changing." "It's happening, but not due to human activity." You fall into the latter slogan, with a slight tweak -- you want to use the word "entirely" instead. Every scientist will concede that warming doesn't occur ENTIRELY because of human activity -- that would be absurd. If that's your only contribution to this discussion, it's a truism. But you go further than that, making ridiculous claims about CO2 and natural "forces," all of which have been dealt with by climatologists for decades.
One doesn't have to deny that climate change is happening to be considered a climate denier. There are all types.
Quoting god must be atheist
Yet you can write two more posts, spouting nonsense. Got it.
You have no argument, and probably didn't read most of what I wrote. If you had, you'd see it wasn't "my" argument -- it's the argument and evidence put forth by NASA, NOAA, climate websites, university departments, etc.
So in other words, this is just a childish way to get away from the fact that you either don't read or don't have an argument.
On the other hand, you have plenty of psychobabble to spew:
Quoting god must be atheist
:snicker: I am this, I am that...thanks for your diagnosis.
"Dissent." lol. A person on the Internet who's completely ignorant about climate science and conjures up bogus theories about CO2 does not constitute scientific dissent. Sorry.
Quoting god must be atheist
I never once "swore" not to reply to you -- you made that up, or misread what I wrote -- the same way you misunderstood the video posted from a TV show. Seems to be a theme with you. Try reading a little more carefully.
:roll:
Again...how about learning something about climate science before posting stupidities in public? You're embarrassing yourself.
I'll help you:
https://earthathome.org/quick-faqs/why-is-carbon-dioxide-called-a-greenhouse-gas/
https://climate.nasa.gov
Quoting god must be atheist
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the more warming we see. It's really that simple.
Are you really trying to argue that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas now?
Quoting god must be atheist
I'm actually embarrassed for you. It's as if I'm watching a kid walk into a physics or chemistry department and informing everyone about how wrong Heisenberg was...and then confidently concluding with, "Any questions?"
Good lord.
Quoting god must be atheist
No, the physics says quite the opposite -- you're just ignorant.
You can actually test it yourself, by the way. Experiment at home with CO2 versus ambient air and see which one heats up faster.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
Please don't pretend to know what you're talking about; you don't. These sites themselves state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas -- that's all you need to understand.
Being a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with specific heat capacity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas because of the property to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen do not have this property to the same degree -- i.e., they are much more transparent to IR.
(CO2 doesn't get any warmer in the process, by the way. So GW has nothing whatsoever to do with specific heat capacity.)
Sunlight absorbed at the surface of the Earth warms the surface, which radiates that heat back towards space. Oxygen and nitrogen are relatively much more transparent to infrared than carbon dioxide and methane. As concentrations of the latter increase, more of the infrared is reflected back to the surface instead of escaping to space.
Think about those extremely thin and light "space blankets" -- they have very little heat capacity, but keep you very warm through reflection of your body heat.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/simple-measurements-demonstrate-that-co2-is-a-greenhouse-gas-tim-ball/
Quoting god must be atheist
You know, maybe you wouldn't be ridiculed so much if you showed the slightest bit of humility on this issue -- an issue that has been studied for decades by climate scientists (people who have dedicated their lives to this specific issue). Given the wealth of information available on the topic, your ignorance is really inexcusable -- but that's not my problem with you -- my problem with you is your arrogance.
Do you ever ask yourself: "What is more likely: (1) that I have refuted/undermined the science of climate change because of something I found that everyone has overlooked, or (2) that maybe, because I'm not an expert, I am simply confused?"
Either you don't ask yourself this, or you do but you conclude that (1) is more likely -- in which case, you're not only ignorant, but suffer from delusions of grandeur. I cannot imagine an ego of such magnitude. How old are you? If you're 16 or 17, I can look the other way. Otherwise, good lord...
Take it to feedback please.
I'm only familiar with Smil in that I've seen some YouTube videos; I haven't read his books.
He's interesting, though, and I'd like to hear more about what he thinks some realistic solutions are. If you're more familiar, can you elaborate on a few? Otherwise it seems like he's saying it's hopeless. While that may be the case -- and there's no sense being a fool about things if it is -- there must be some things we can do to at least mitigate the absolute worst case scenarios.
First, this has nothing to do with the fact humans have always had some impact on the planet. What a population of 300 million humans could do 2000 years ago is rather irrelevant compared to 8 billion now.
Second, we have no choice but to burn fossil fuels while making a transition. So that is another bad faith debating point here.
No one’s plan involves “just limiting carbon”. The issue is just to start limiting carbon and just to start making a transition.
Why would you be pushing things that aren’t in contention except to make it all seem a little more complicated and uncertain then it actually is?
I agree with Smil that people should be told the truth, which is that we all have to use much less energy if we want to ameliorate (probably the best we can hope for) global warming while we try to make the inevitably slow transition to more sustainable energy sources. So Smil doesn't say it is hopeless and we should just continue business as usual, but he says that our strategies must be realistic or we will be walking blind into a worse catastrophe than we would have if we faced the hard reality. Of course the problem is political, not for the usual reasons it is said to be so, but because governments, and especially democratically elected governments, don't want to, for all the obvious reasons, confront their peoples with such hard truths.
Smil is right but the problem is that then folk start accepting that there won’t be any orderly transition so the game becomes about survivalist scenarios, both at personal and state levels.
The calculus quickly gets ugly.
I think you would be right assuming that most people cannot accept the personal sacrifices that would be necessary, in terms of reduction of energy and general consumption.
So it seems we will muddle on in light of the (ig)noble lies that sooth the anxieties of the masses, and line the pockets of the predators.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
- uncertainties about the human part of the warming
- people’s will to make sacrifices for the sake of reducing warming. On a personal and governmental level.
- various links to for and against.
I feel tnere are too many hidden agendas in all these types of discussions.
The really toxic part is if some people want other people to make sacrifices that they do not see as sound. That really blocks all parts to common understandings.
I do not know, but suspect, that different habitats for upbringing can make people more or less apt to make changes.
And further, the climate discussions are not only questions of sacrificing or not. There are things like technology in the mix too. Eg Nuclear Power.
To philosohize is supposedly a very low emission producing activity. People should sit down and think instead of travelling all over the place… i find people rooting for the climate also loving travelling. Thats not so cool.
We should decarbonize as quickly as possible. There — fixed it. Most of his points seem to be like this. Nitpicking. He points out that 1.5 is arbitrary, that 2030 is artificial, that decarbonizing will be very hard, etc. Yeah, no kidding.
I’m curious as to why you’re drawn to his voice in particular?
Personally I think he gives cover to a lot of delay tactics, and echos a lot of stuff that can be read on the WSJ editorial page. That’s dangerous too. As much so as setting unrealistic goals.
Quoting Janus
You’ve said this several times now. Who’s saying the problem is “merely political”? Our leaders in government, who make crucial decisions about the future, are important — but that’s hardly the only problem.
Good solutions are indeed being disrupted by the fossil fuel industry, when it comes to legislation and government action. I don’t see any way to deny this. When it comes to individual consumer choices, innovation, cost, infrastructure, etc., those have their own obstacles. Sometimes it’s just NIMBYism, for example— hardly Big Oil’s fault.
A lot of this just reeks of strawmanning I’m afraid.
Quoting Janus
That’s one truth, yes. We should cut down on our energy use. But who’s “we”? Individual consumers? Yeah, that’s been a nice industry technique for 30 years: buy better lightbulbs, recycle, compost, turn off lights, etc. Passes on responsibility to individuals and ignores or minimizes those in power — the choices of industry and government.
If by “we” you mean our government — yeah, they have the ability to build public transportation, electrify thousands of USPS trucks and school buses, stop leasing federal land, regulating business, etc. Choices average individuals don’t make. I’d say that’s far more important — and what most people want, incidentally.
This idea that the onus is really on the masses is weak. We all play a role, but law, private enterprise, and economic policy play a much bigger role. The case of public transit versus individual cars is a good example— most people want efficient public transit systems. Yet they’re encouraged — by choices made by real people — to purchase cars instead. And there’s no secret why that is.
So while Smil is interesting and generally correct, I don’t think there’s much that’s new there. Yes the problem is very hard, yes individual choices play a role, and yes we should have realistic goals and look at how reliant we are on fossil fuels with clear lenses. I don’t see being unrealistic as much of a problem, however — most people are probably more pessimistic than anything.
Let’s get moving and talk about the solutions rather than chastising people for being too ambitious— or taking them to “get real.” That smells of egoism — “I, the true objective scientist, have a grasp on reality and will tell it to you straight.” I don’t think that attitude is particularly useful— it could do far more harm than good.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure, you just need to make sure your projected timeframes are achievable, otherwise your strategy will not be adequate to the task.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't think so. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it's not a point that would be easy to argue either way. Smil's knowledge seems encyclopedic, and I have no reason to think he's "bought" so I'd trust his expert judgement over yours.
Quoting Xtrix
The idea is not weak in a democracy; the "masses" are the electorate, and the government will be voted out in a few years if it displeases the electorate.
Quoting Xtrix
This just seems like tendentious rhetoric to me, not at all appropriate as a criticism of what Smil is saying. The "masses" don't listen to Smil anyway. Anyway don't bother yourself about my perspective...carry on...
I didn't say he wasn't knowledgable, or even that he was wrong -- and certainly not that he was bought. True, you're not saying that I said it -- but then why bring it up?
Anyway -- I don't doubt he's a good scientist and is a knowledgeable one -- he's interesting. I don't dismiss him. But I do think that his points -- at least some of the ones I menitoned -- are nitpicky, and run the risk of encouraging defeatism and the delay tactics of fossil fuel interests.
Quoting Janus
Well there's a lot to be said about that, of course. But aren't you here making the case that government really is the most important factor? Because if the responsibility lies in the mass of people -- because they're the ones who elect the leaders -- rather than, say, their consumption habits, what else is this except blaming the electorate for the poor decisions of leaders?
This may be correct, of course, but it seems to me it assumes the power and importance of government and politics -- a point I thought you were arguing against earlier.
Quoting Janus
Fair enough.
Right, in a way I think government is the most important factor, since they make the policy decisions. But government, even one with the best will in the world, can be rendered impotent if what it proposes is unpalatable to the people. Here in Australia, the downfall of Kevin Rudd came about due to the perception that his proposed carbon tax would be seen as a "great big tax" (as the new opposition leader later framed it).
The liberal (conservative) party ousted their leader Malcolm Turnbull who had agreed to sign off on the tax. Rudd was replaced by Julia Gillard, who shortly had to campaign for new elections, and she did so promising not to introduce a carbon tax. But because of not having enough seats to form government she capitulated to the greens, and went back on that promise. Of course next election she was voted out as Tony Abbott, the man the liberals replaced Malcolm Turnbull with, promised to repeal the "great big tax".
You mention the peoples' "consumption habits": it is my opinion that any government that threatens to diminish or impact those in any significant way will not last long. I think people generally want governments to "fix this global warming issue" without impacting on their accustomed lifestyles,
What about the underdeveloped countries: how are they going to be "brought out of poverty" if decarbonization is inevitably going to cause a decline in general prosperity, and the more so, the more quickly it is brought about?
That’s definitely an issue— and it should be minimized if possible — but the government does all kinds of things that cause pain. Look at what the Fed is doing now. It may not be popular, but if it’s considered necessary (as this is), they should go ahead with it. The lockdowns were another example.
Either way the people are going to suffer. Best to explain it to them that this transition is necessary and inevitable, and that the alternative is far worse for themselves, their kids and grandkids. I don’t think people are as addicted to meat and cars as much as we think. If we give more options and stop brainwashing people through advertising and media propaganda, we wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.
Quoting Janus
That’s a hard problem. I’ve seen some proposals— but first and foremost the US has to lead the way, along with other major emitters. They should also help developing countries develop sustainable practices.
So this, for example:
Quoting Xtrix
which is pretty much what I have said governments should be telling people, but I believe won't for the reasons I've already given, would need to have bipartisan support.
Since voluntary degrowth is no option, we need to try to innovate and transition our way out of it. We especially need more Nuclear power plants, as fast as possible, to try and replace some of the energy we get from fossil fuels. It's the only carbon-free energy source that is reliable and energy-dense enough. Renewables can complement those, but can and should never have been the main replacement. They are simply not energy efficient enough, and you'll always have intermittency problems.
The alternative is involuntary degrowth, or collapse... and that would presumably be even worse since then one tends to turn to the more low-tech energy-sources, which also usually happen to be the most pollutant, like coal.
Anyway, in short, we need more nuclear power. It's safe, it's reliable, it's clean... only problem is, it has a bad rep. The alternatives are a hothouse earth, or a total collapse of industrial civilization.
Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban.
I thought I saw something ... maybe not.
They hardly mention any sacrifices that would have to be made to implement the policies, as that doesn't seem to be the subject of the study.
A ban on the combustion engine is hardly a sacrifice if it is understood that they can be replaced by electric engines, a transition that would probably have to be be subsidized by the state anyway.
Also, agreeing with investment for a green transition if they get the money for the investments from the rich is no sacrifice at all:
"Figure A6 shows the answers to the question about which sources of funding respondents would consider appropriate for public investments in green infrastructures. Respondents tend to agree that appropriate funding sources are higher taxes on the wealthiest and a carbon tax. They are much less likely to agree with additional public debt, reductions in social spending, reductions in military spending, or increases in the sales taxes as appropriate sources of funding."
Loosely translated, they would agree to more green investments if it doesn't cost them anything.
Anyway, talk is cheap, across Europe governments are falling over eachothers feet now to reduce energy-prices for the public, which is the opposite of what a green policy should look like because it incentivizes energy-consumption which leads to more emissions.
Wouldn't the question about be poor people, not the rich people that can afford brand new electric cars?
And yes, CM, people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes.
Sure, but that's part of the problem, no? If we wait to do something about climate change until we a have policies that impact everybody equally, we might have to wait until it's to late. The rich are rather good at avoiding taxes and social responsibilities. And then across countries you also have the tragedy of the commons/prisoners dilemma, in that in a world of competing countries you don't want to be the first to make sacrifices that makes you weaker competitively.
Quoting Benkei
I don't see evidence for this specifically in the study, but I only skimmed it so maybe I missed it.
There's a huge difference on what kind of subsidy one wants for a negative outcome than with the tax one would pay for there be no negative outcome.
Far better is to give incentives for the industry and for the needed infrastructure to be created for electric cars (starting with having that electricity demand met without new or existing coal plants).
Furthermore, just notice that actually older cars don't run on present day fuel sold in gas stations. So the timeline basically for cars to transform happens in many decades.
Far too many times policies are done that sound good, people think our needed, but simply don't have any trace of reality in them. As if they really would want to face an economic recession, blackouts and lower standard of living than before. Just as one historical example: after the Three Mile Island incident, Sweden decided after a referendum in 1980 to go away from nuclear energy. The Parliament decided that nuclear energy production would be phased out by 2010, hence in thirty years. In 2010, Sweden was producing far more nuclear energy, both in power and percentage wise, than in 1980.
Nearly one third of electricity in Sweden is produced by nuclear energy in Sweden today, 42 years after that decision.
So one can basically fuck off with 90% of the bullshit energy policy initiatives which sound good to people, won't happen and will be forgotten when the next administration comes in. And that's why basically many countries don't have a real energy policy. It's all just nice words far from the actual reality.
(Sweden before Greta. Nuclear was bad even then.)
I don't have time to read things others reference. If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. The fact that the researchers might be proposing banning combustion engines (all combustion engines or just some, and over what time frame?) does not equate to acceptance of the idea by the general populace, and nor does it equate to the proposal being actually viable.
I never pretended to have read the linked research; if you thought that it was entirely your own imagining. But wait, you didn't think I had read it anyway:
Quoting Benkei
Don't pretend that I have blamed you for my not having read it, either. I don't blame you for anything other than expecting me to read it, rather than taking the trouble yourself to quote the relevant part(s).
:roll:
Quoting Janus
This is blame. I'm to follow your unpublished rules of engagement and I'm not allowed to expect you to read something that denies your claims. Silly me. Here I thought you'd be happily surprised people are willing to make sacrifices and you'd actually be interested. Guess that resolves that mystery: your opinion is more dear to you than actual facts. Nice.
It was not a "blanket denial of the research" but an expression of doubt that the research could be relevant to the point I made that most people don't wish to have their accustomed lifestyles disrupted, and will vote against any proposal to do so. Can you imagine what people would say to a government that told them they must dispose of their SUV and buy a tiny car instead, or stop traveling by air, or actually stop traveling unless on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, because it is a privilege the poor in third world countries don't enjoy?
I can! That's an intuition of mine to be sure, but I think it's accurate, and I know without reading it that no research could prove that wrong, even if they surveyed everyone, because what people say they will agree to and what they actually will agree to, when it comes to the crunch, can be two very different things, as I already suggested. I actually don't believe the majority of people would even say they would agree to such measures, let alone actually agree to them.
This means, for example, that they will struggle to build their wooden huts on stilts above the flood water in Pakistan, until the flood that washes it all away, and then they will drown. If the government tells them to stay at home for 3 months, or wear a mask, or wear a burkha they will do so, and try to live with that. So there is no problem in banning private transport powered by fossil fuels, and no problem introducing rationing, or enforcing house sharing, or any other necessary measure.
If it were not so, there could be no wars.
https://apnews.com/article/science-oceans-glaciers-greenland-climate-and-environment-9cd7662658ebbeaba05682352de8aa87
This summer has made it even more obvious that we’re heading for disaster— and that much of it is already locked in from the last 30 years of inaction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/climate/global-warming-climate-tipping-point.html?smid=url-share
Greta Thunberg says it would be "a mistake" for Germany to switch off its nuclear power plants if that means the country must burn more climate-wrecking coal.
The German government is still debating the future of its nuclear plants, long set to be shut down this year, given the spectre of a looming energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine.
The climate activist told German public broadcaster ARD that it was “a very bad idea to focus on coal when this [nuclear power] is already in place.”
But she acknowledged in the interview, aired today, that there was a strong debate over the issue in Germany.
Asked whether it would be better for the planet if Germany keeps its three remaining nuclear plants going, Thunberg responded: “If we have them already running, I feel that it’s a mistake to close them down in order to focus on coal.”
Pressed by programme host Sandra Maischberger on whether she thought the nuclear plants should be closed down as soon as possible after the current energy crunch passes, Thunberg said “it depends. We don’t know what will happen after this."
The 19-year-old's comments come as Germany's three-party governing coalition argues over the possibility of suspending the country's nuclear phaseout.
They should be building nuclear plants en masse non stop.
Winter is coming.
I think she's right. It takes a long time to build these things, so we should be using what is there for as long as possible.
[i]"The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C.
Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.
The report finds that only an urgent system-wide transformation can deliver the enormous cuts needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2030: 45 per cent compared with projections based on policies currently in place to get on track to 1.5°C and 30 per cent for 2°C."[/i]
Urgent system-wide transformation is unlikely. Enormous investments are needed for that world-wide, and with things getting progressively worse geopolitically, economically and also energy-security wise, investments that only re-pay themselves in the long term seem to be getting more difficult as we get deeper into it. Saying only urgent system-wide transformation would do it, is essentially the same as saying we won't make those targets.
Fingers crossed that people don’t opt for suicide.
More than certain political parties winning in this or that country, the issue we have and have had for the past 30 years is mostly global and systemic. This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons. Fossil fuels is power (and not that easy to replace contrary to somewhat popular opinion), and countries are locked in geopolitical struggle always... which means those that would stop using carbon fuels first loose out, and so they don't.
The only possible way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is the main geopolitical powers, the US and China, both unilaterally or maybe in a bilateral agreement, deciding to phase out fossil fuels in a short timeframe and forcing the rest of the world to follow. So maybe it could be about national politics after all, but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much.
I think we will reach certain tipping points at this stage simply from inactivity and favouring observing the effects of climate as proof that it exists, rather than to acting against them without evidence. But the evidence in daily life is growing and those that said it was deniable are finding it harder and harder to justify their denial these days.
Having said that we are extremely resourceful and clever when we need to be. And we are able to adapt very well. So now that climate change is really making itself known through observation I think more and more people are getting on board with the idea that it is a true and inevitable problem.
Now that we are becoming ever more united against climate change we can adapt to those tipping points that have already past and make plans to circumvent those that have not already occurred.
On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.
It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference.
You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide.
The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves?
No. Reason and rhetoric are not the same. People are hardly, if ever, convinced by reason.
Quoting Benj96
Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want. But I wasn't talking about people, but about nations... people don't matter all that much in this case.
Quoting Benj96
Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true?
Then you’re really not paying attention.
Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying.
Also suppose you hold a gun to someone's head and try to make them do what you want. And they refuse. Your only choice is what... Have your bluffed called and you drop the weapon or you pull the trigger. Would you really make a murderer out of yourself just because someone resoundingly disagreed with what you wanted?
No not myself some advantage. Surprisingly, not everything someone does is in self interest. Sometimes we see an issue that isn't our problem and doesn't affect us but we go out and try to solve it for others to make their lives better. We do it because we can. And because its what we think is right.
Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation.
You can, but you shouldn't, sure, I can agree with that. Anyway, we going on a bit of a tangent here. My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really.
The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market.
This is a simple idea really. You need energy for almost everything you produce. If energy-costs go up in one country (like it is the case now in Europe) prices go up and sales go down because we have a globalised market... and so companies fail or relocate to a place where costs are lower. At the end of this process political parties in power in that democratic country will lose because people don't like being unemployed and prices going up... so they get replaced by another political party that promises to get back the countries competitive edge. Doing the right thing doesn't get you elected just because it's the right thing.
Edit: And by 'forcing' I don't necessarily mean military force, although that could be part of it, but in the first place setting trade standards with the rest of the world so that carbon fueled goods cannot be sold.
Quoting Benj96
This is an empirical question ultimately, and I think you are just wrong on this. Google and facebook know, their algorithms figured out long ago that what interest people is not measured and balanced, or even true, but rather what is polarising, extreme, and evoking strong emotions.
Nations- being the sum of individuals, have nothing to do with morals? So a nation can act however it pleases against another nation with no consideration for ethics? Please.
Russian is at war with Ukraine at this very moment.
As a nation it is not moral to go to war with another and cause thousands of deaths, pain and suffering.
That isn't to say that every Russian is at fault. Many Russians disagree with the war and want nothing to do with it. It is the government (democratic or tyrannical) which is responsible for the morality of international relations with another country.
In a dictatorship the action of a nation towards another is the whim of one person. In a healthy democracy the action of a nation towards another reflects the conscience and values of each individual - as their vote did contribute to what pathways are allowed or disallowed by leaders.
National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. But sadly in some governments it only reflects the morality of a few - in the interests of individual good rather than the greater good.
Agreed in the sense that the largest powers should be the ones to set an example. Disagree that they are the only nations that can. Of course they're not.
With current competition and the heftier cost of renewables the ideal way to change is unanimously and simultaneously with one another as a collective of nations so that no individual nation suffers market disadvantage.
But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way.
Granted some have had a natural geographical advantage (Iceland for example). So the switch to renewables is really more crucial an argument between countries which produce the most fossil fuels and not those that have readily available renewable alternatives.
It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil).
No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.
And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world.
Quoting Benj96
It's to be expected, we have been externalising environmental costs and other costs that don't directly impact us for the entirety of our history (maybe there were some exceptions, but they didn't make it in any case). It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part.
Quoting Benj96
They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem.
You highlight some valid particularities here. I will reconsider my approach based on that info I didn't know previously. Yes maybe they aren't really representing the world at large
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes agreed overpopulation is a big issue in all of this. The world wasn't designed for such abundance of a highly demanding apex species.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.
People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.
What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve?
He already said he's not denying climate change.
Quoting Mikie
No relation to any of his points. A clear sign of plugging your ears and serving only as a mouthpiece for your echo chamber.
Okay, this is sort of delusional, lol. Can you find a single fact to back that up?
Climate denial takes many forms.
But who are you and why are you commenting on something written a year ago? Very strange.
Quoting Matt E
What a bizarre thing to say.
First, he had no points to respond to besides the following:
To which YOUR response was:
Quoting Matt E
I suppose this wasn’t “plugging your ears”, eh? Calling someone delusional?
Not a great way to begin on this forum.
What if there is no good solution? Not every problem has a solution.
But ok, raising awareness and moral outrage generally does matter and can help in solving a problem, I'll meet you halfway on that. The issue here I think is that people don't like the solution, not that they are not aware of the problem. At some point (after 30 years or so) you got to think things like climate denial or minimizing of the consequences of climate change is not a matter of people not being informed, but a matter of people not wanting to know... because they don't like what it entails. And so they back-create a story that saves them from cognitive dissonance.
There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas.
None of the energy sources that could replace them quite have the same set of properties, and all have their various problems. Wind and solar for instance are only intermittent, actually not that cheap when you'd build them outside of a fossil fueled economy, are also an environmental liability if you scale them up and we'd probably run out rare earth materials if you'd try it as a main energy source world wide.
Nuclear and deep geothermal, if we could solve the issues with drilling, are probably our best bet as a replacement on a large enough scale, but those also do require time to build and/or develop... and we are running out of time as we speak. But that would be a start of a solution, the US and Chinese government (and Europe too) throwing huge amounts of money at research and development, and at building those. Once you have enough carbon-free energy you could power carbon capture technologies and EV's and/or hydrogen-production for things like transport.
And then these rich developed countries would need to enforce carbon-free trade and actively help the rest of the world with their energy-transition, which is probably a big ask with geo-political tensions as they are.
Anyway, needless to say these are huge transformations which require a lot of time and focussed effort.... in a messy world. It's not that it is theoretically impossible, but it's still very difficult and at the end of the day people typically can't be bothered that much with a problem that will have it's full impact only decades into the future.
https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg
The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.
Endless growth is cancerous.
Perfect use of the term cancerous imo.
A healthy cell recognises that it can't have it all without being a cancer to the others, and ironically ignoring those natural laws to its existence (the immune system) will end in ultimately killing its host. And nobody is a winner in that case.
I think our current global capitalist regime has elements of this toxic or "cancerous" insistance that economy can grow indefinitely in a finite space (the earth - our organism).
I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.
She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours.
I agree unenlightened, at least in principle, I have no particular love for current society based on economic growth. If we were to turn back time a couple of centuries, i'd say let's not start on this particular track.
Problem is that I think we kindof trapped ourselves at this point. Fossil fuels and technologies build on them enabled us to soar high above what is sustainable.
If we were to cut all of that back however I think we would have some serious problems, because we are with that many, because the whole global economy is so integrated, because a certain amount of climate warming and ecosystems collapse is already locked in for the next century even if we would stop right away etc etc...
All of that means we cannot merely stop what we are doing I think. We need an exit strategy that ideally doesn't involve total collapse of our systems (and lots of people dying), a strategy that people could get behind politically also, and at the same time it would need to get us to some place in the future that is sustainable and gives us some perspective going forward.
People will focus on some small subset of the problem, point fingers, play the blame game, come up with simplistic solutions... or on the opposite side people will deny the problem altogether or at least the severity of the consequences of the problem. I see very few actually trying to integrate multiple aspects of the problem in a coherent solution, maybe because it is very difficult... lets at least acknowledge that much.
Mother nature is a bitch, because she never told us the rules, but she will still enforce them just the same.... And the only house rule is, if you go to far, you die.
Any biological organism is looking for surplus energy to propagate it's particular form. That is what is selected for in evolutionary terms. Did we really have a choice to leave free energy in the ground collectively?
Typically, competition among organisms is fierce and adaptive enough so that no single one can take the upper hand for long. We broke genetic evolution however with our ability for cultural evolution. While the rest of the natural world is stuck evolving claws and teeth over millennia, we can create a gun in a couple of centuries.
Unfortunately, our success is also our downfall... yeast. We did everything right to succeed in your game and now you punish us for it, thanks a lot mother nature!
Opinion: The Parliamentary Budget Officer just debunked climate alarmism
[sup]— Ross McKitrick · Financial Post · Dec 7, 2022[/sup]
Either way...
Don't panic :up:
Get your (our) act together :up:
Not much change by 2100. :up:
Yeah, because both of you have shown a real understanding of climatology. :roll:
Keep reading the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world.
Spoiler alert: it definitely, definitely is. We’re not panicked enough, in fact.
I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking.
His statements are in line with the mainstream view. There's a delayed effect with CO2 emissions. Some of the warming from the CO2 put out in the 22nd Century won't be felt till later.
The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic.
Just what the world needs: more panic. That'll do it.
Yeah, you’re right. Being calm and collected has worked wonders so far.
Quoting frank
:lol:
Again, for those truly interested: read climate scientists, not Internet buffoons.
You’d be right to. McKitrick is a moron. Not only does he misrepresent the IPCC, notice that he also quotes from the 2013 report. Can’t even take the time to misrepresent the latest version.
Economic models are — and have been shown to be— complete garbage on this matter.
Again— We can listen to the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, and feel great because we have “special knowledge” and are so very much “outside the mainstream” (thus conveniently relieved of actually learning about the subject), and then proudly proclaim it’s “No big deal”— or we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words.
Climate denial is much easier. Just “weather volatility,” after all. So we can rest our little heads about it.
Probably better not to use this archaic word. When I studied climatology at the U of Chi eons ago it was the post-graduate basket-weaving course in meteorology, in contrast to atmospheric science and fluid dynamics which were much more rigorous. These days more legitimate scientists are involved in climate science.
Some oldtimers (conservative Repubs?) still think of "climatology" the way it used to be - not very good at specifics and mostly just descriptive.
Eh. I use it interchangeably with climate science myself— but I understand your point.
No, that’s denial— which is rampant.
The amount of ignorance on this very forum about climate change is itself evidence that we should ignore 90% of what’s written on “philosophical” matters.
If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.
What else do you have planned before myopia extinguishes our species? It is rather sad, certainly that even amongst these intelligent friends, it is a struggle all the day long just to establish that there is something to be concerned about. Of course in relation to recent posts, one has to understand that Canada is one place that might become more hospitable to human life with Global warming. And that is the myopia once again, as if all the migrants from the tropics, the floodplains, the expanding deserts and ecological disaster zones won't be bothering all the nice Canadians at all.
I used to be interested in Ecosophy back in the day, but those were the days when philosophy departments in Universities were being defunded because they could not show the value of their product. Well you get what you pay for, I suppose. You pay peanuts, you get snake oil.
Anyway, the problem remains that even now, the only appeal that anyone can even understand is to naked self-interest. "Hey, we're all going to die. " Perhaps you and I are the stupid apes that cannot see that that must be a good thing for the poor planet, and the sooner the better.
Why would we ask climatologists about economic impacts?
The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. Also, you might wanna review the claim scientifically. In other words, climate scientists havta get their act together. Sorry if this offends you, not really my style. It's 11[sup]th[/sup]December and where I am, it's unusually warm this year. :chin:
Come on now. If climate change isn’t watertight, what is?
The problem isn’t that it isn’t watertight, it’s that there has been a deliberate push to confuse and delay. Frontline had a 3-part series on this a few months back — worth checking out. It’s about big oil but Exxon especially.
Look no further for why it’s controversial. Anything factual becomes controversial if it threatens powerful interests. That’s been true since Galileo, at least.
:up:
It does get tiresome.
I see. Exploring science is going to go a long way towards settling the matter; if not, it'll explain the situation we're in. Gracias for the clarification.
That’s the biggest story from 2022.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/from-climate-exhortation-to-climate-execution
This Year Was the Beginning of a Green Transition
CNN:
As we gain in wind and solar, we lose in our most dependable source, hydroelectric power, as Lake Mead and Lake Powell continue to dry up. Almost all of Switzerland's energy comes through hydroelectric, and the government is telling its citizens to cut back on the use of their EVs.
:up: :100:
:up:
Hottest years on record, the last 8 were.
But hey, at least I can have a beer on a terrace during winter!
(1) Deforestation.
Farming (palm oil, soy)
Livestock (cows, pigs, chickens)
Development (housing, roads, mining, businesses)
(2) Energy.
Oil
Natural gas
Coal
Burned to produce energy for:
Electricity
Transportation
Heat
Industry (steel, plastics, concrete)
Agriculture
-----
Little synopsis I found recently. Sums is up quickly.
https://apple.news/AfEh6Vmu5T8OrSjoVW2rFNg
Some bad news...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60248830
Damn you Isaac— Couldn’t just give me 5 minutes, could you?
Sorry. I'll try and restrain my pessimism in future. In my defense, I'm English. It's our default state.
Ah, I forgot. In that case, I’ll let it slide.
Sell your beachfront property while you can. I understand prices are going up in some places. Go figure.
@Isaac
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed-1000-super-emitting-methane-leaks-risk-triggering-climate-tipping-points
I'm Scottish.
Yep. You win. My search for "World Goes to Hell in a Handcart" yielded nothing. I am, however, thinking of embedding this as my new email signature
Great. . .
Sleepwalking to extinction.
More like running. But yes, to extinction.
Quoting Manuel
On the coast of Florida that might be more likely wading.
Very soon, yes. A bit later, Florida isn't going to be livable, barring a gigantic infrastructure change not seen since the Southern part of Florida was built.
Indeed. Some were hoping we got to that point in 2030, not prior. So, it's a bit worse than predicted, which isn't promising.
Yes, that's rather sensible, however bad it seems now, very soon, it's going to be significantly worse than predicted, because every new study is confirming this, including this one by McKibben:
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/maybe-we-should-have-called-this
This is going to be an El Nino year. It's going to be pretty warm.
Yes, and we can't predict, a-priori, how bad it will be on top of the already burning ocean, so it's a kind of Russian roulette.
Quoting Aljazeera
"Breaching 1.5C threshold" in a single year is meaningless, because there is no such threshold. Single-year averages can deviate widely from the long-term trend, and in an El Nino year that's expected.
It may not formally lead to the conclusion that we already have exceeded the 2030 deadline goals, but it's certainly a statement announcing that this is likely to happen.
The McKibben article should also cause concern. It's hotter than predicted in addition to having El Nino, so that's worse.
I can see it clearly here where I live, the Dominican Republic, the amounts of seaweed we are getting from the bottom of the ocean off the coasts of Africa is insane, causing as much as an 80% drop in tourism, depleting oxygen and harming peoples health.
It's just awful.
There's no reason to believe climate change will cause human extinction. Primates originally evolved at the poles during the PETM. The surface was hotter then than it will be during the whole AGW episode.
But one thing I've found: the belief that we're facing the end is very strong. I think those who hold that belief are doing so for a reason I don't totally understand.
Not the end of the species, but the end of organized human societies yes. It's an important distinction.
People won't be able to live in Florida or Saudi Arabia, water scarcity is and will become massive issues, lots of migration, etc.
We won't all die, but it won't resemble much what we have now, relatively safe cities, food readily available, being able to go outside for too long in certain areas, etc.
So it is pretty bad, though not literally the end.
I agree with that. I think it will be like the end of the Bronze Age. Lots of wars, displaced people, breakdown of the global community.
There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, not just social breakdown. Tipping points could be breached, leading to hothouse earth scenarios. But beyond that, in combination with other threats we face, including nuclear war, it’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight.
It’s simply time to tune out anyone who says things won’t be so bad— aka the Bjorn Lomburg school of denial. It’s the same crowd that feels, by some kind of compulsion, to point out that a few human beings may survive a global nuclear war — hence making it technically not “existential.”
Like I said, just tune them out.
No.
It could, but it alone would be insufficient for all human beings on Earth to die.
Another issue would be nuclear war, that would end everything.
It's not good, nor am I minimizing it, but just stating what I believe would be most likely. The collapse of cities and states is pretty bad...
True, societal collapse is bad enough. Whether climate change “alone” could cause extinction, I’m not sure what that means. Nuclear war “alone” may not wipe out human beings either.
There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, which is underreported and commonly downplayed so as not to appear “alarmist,” but it’s certainly possible. But apart from that, consider the related biodiversity collapse or threats to agriculture or consistent superstorms.
Anyway, the point stands: when you encounter people whose first reaction to the evidence of climate change is to compulsively say “It won’t wipe us out,” just ignore them. They’re irrelevant.
Listen to experts who study extinctions:
[quote=Luke Kemp] If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt. [/quote]
Or we can say “Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” But I prefer not to do that.
I didn't say everything will be fine. I compared the coming event to the end of the Bronze Age. The only social collapse that compares to that is the fall of Rome.
Quoting Mikie
That's not a thing.
Quoting Mikie
Context?
What it means is that, out of 8 billion or so people in the world, several could survive, maybe millions, or more, or less, who knows.
Nuclear War would be worse, given the radiation and the sheer force, so it's unlikely more of them would live than given extremely dire climate change scenarios, but we are splitting hairs, in terms of the amount of people who may survive or not.
It's not about being alarmist or not alarmist, it's pretty darn bad, which is why the links I provided, contribute to such damning conclusions, that we are in very deep shit.
You react to people as you think you should, I'll do likewise.
:up:
Climate Alarmists
Quoting Manuel
What predictions are you talking about? Climatologists don't make predictions for individual years.
Eight of the past ten years were the warmest on record, and a similar trend held in preceding decades. That is meaningful. But a single-year record does not mean much on its own, and comparing it with a long-term average prediction is just ignorant.
This article is an old one, but predictions have not changed all that much for the more optimistic since.
Rather than argue back and forth about whether humans will go extinct or merely become an endangered species, let's have a bit of a think about the loss of major cities, and arable land that result from a sea level rise of 20ft (6m.)
This by 2050. If I was a mortgage company, I would be stopping lending in low lying coastal towns.
And of course it's not going to stop at 3ft, nor at 6m.
Argue if you like about whether to call it sea level change, or sea level emergency, extinction or population reduction. Call me an alarmist, though; I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks.
I appreciate and honor that. I'm not alarmed. I'm just kind of heartbroken. I think the most actionable path would be fusion r+d. As the article @jgill posted said, a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing.
Indeed, and everyone is rowing back even on the pointless gestures. Had to laugh at the UK leading the way on carbon reduction by tanking the economy. Half the country is dependent on food hand outs and cannot afford to cook or heat their homes. Quite the achievement! Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us.
I think Bangladesh will be gone soon. Similarly, the east coast of North America is going under. We wait till the hurricanes destroy the coast before we finally give up, though.
See here.
He has the same autonomy to act that the Chinese government does. Both of them are actually addressing the problem while western governments do nothing but posture (or close to nothing.)
Ahem...
aha
No, it IS CO2, methane, CFCs, and other gases. Greed has been a feature of human beings from the get go, but global warming has been a problem for a little over a century. It's industrialization and population growth. The world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927; it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. In the last 60 years, we've added 5 billion+, all using various pieces of the first and second industrial revolutions (which have depended heavily on fossil fuels, for which there are no great substitute).
It isn't human greed that's preventing us from dramatically and radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are no great substitutes for fossil fuels (no easily portable energy dense substances without serious manufacturing or toxicity problems). It's difficult to get 8 people to agree on what to order for lunch, never mind getting 8 billion people to act on climate change in a coordinated fashion.
We are making some, limited progress. I very much doubt whether we will succeed in avoiding disaster, but we are, sort of, trying. What are you doing to help?
I hear it's the belching that's the bigger methane problem.
If you can't take a little heat then stay out of the kitchen.
Yeah, you just have no clue what you’re talking about. Take your denialism elsewhere.
There is a lot of emotional satisfaction in the idea of having something to blame. This is where we humans are so foolish.
Here's a little factoid for the Greta fans who might be reading. When a large composite volcano pops it's cork such as the one at Krakatoa. More greenhouse gasses are released in that event than all produced inthe entirety ot human activities on this planet.
Here's another interesting tidbit. Someone please tell me why the climate change advocates set their sights on western countries where white people are with their complaints while steadfastly ignoring the oriental offenders? North Korea might well have the foulest air on the planet but the greenies never mention them. China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not?
You see? It's political.
When I read about American college kids complaining about the pollution generated by China and North Korea I'll change my tune. Until them I am convinced it's all no more than anti-white posturing.
But... thanks for moving my thread. I didn't even know about the other location.
So yes, it's political because it makes sense. I'll ignore the racist canard of this being anti-white as being off topic and a rabbit hole I don't want to continue in.
As to "climate change has always happened", well, duh. Nobody ever claimed otherwise but it is clearly man made now as the speed at which it's changing globally is unprecedented. https://xkcd.com/1732/
Yes, you are right -- climate is always in a state of change. We have all sorts of evidence to support that idea. Nobody (in their right mind) denies this. However, nobody in their right mind thinks the current, very rapid climate change is normal.
Quoting Varnaj42
Au contraire! China is very much recognized as the largest current contributor of CO2 from coal fired power plants and auto emissions. China has an all-round atrocious record of air and water pollution. On the other hand, they are also building out very large wind and solar systems. No industrial country--not the US, not the EU, not China, not anybody else--can convert from coal to solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro energy without expending huge amounts of energy constructing the new systems. Coal, oil, and gas have to be used in the interim for steel, cement, aluminum, glass, mining, and other heavy industrial processes.
The big CATCH 22 for us is that a lot of CO2 will be produced solving the CO2 problem. That's one reason why our situation is bleak.
Take electric cars for example. There are about 1 billion internal combustion automobiles on the roads around the world. They produce lot of CO2. "Oh, but once we are all driving electric cars, that won't be a problem any more. Electricity will be green." Hang on. How will we produce 1 billion electric cars without generating a lot of Co2? How will we mine, refine, and transport millions of tons of raw material for all these new cars without generating CO2? Who thinks we can have millions (billions) of solar panels and a few million windmills without heavy manufacturing in the near future?
The answer is that we will keep producing more CO2 for the foreseeable future as we attempt to change our economies from the bottom up.
Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology. That would result in a very fast drop in the emissions of all green house gasses. Such a move would also involve the world's economies hitting a very thick brick wall at 80 mph. The only thing that would be as disruptive is probably a nuclear war or a world wide epidemic of the Black Plague without antibiotics.
In summation, then, we are totally screwed.
'Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
First we have to agree, really agree, not that climate change exists because it does.. we have to agree about the causes. Until this happens I choose to believe that climate change is not caused by human activity.
One scientific school has declared that the cycles of the sun as combined with those of the Earth's rotational and orbital eccentricities are to blame. Are there any liberals willing to take a serious look at this? Be nice if their were.
Thanks for the comment... It's funny. We are living in a threat of global communism and we can't find anything better to do than to argue about climate change.
You may not disagree, but the fact of human-induced climate change is proven beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of how you feel about it.
Quoting Varnaj42
Yes so perhaps you can find something more constructive to say rather than waste further time denying the science.
The science is very clear - increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, plainly correlated to emissions caused by human activities, are unmistakeably linked to increasing global temperatures. It is very clear and simple. There might be scientists who want to dispute that, but scientists were employed by the tobacco industry to cast doubt over the link to lung cancer (see Merchants of Doubt). It's the same kind of scenario with climate-change denial, there are many vested interests who want to deny it.
I don't believe that climate change is a threat at all. My opinion is that all this hype is just another game being played by the big boys with all the money.
Here is my opinion about our future. Earth changes are natural and normal. It's OK to discuss them but it's not OK to run around like chickens with no heads going berserk over who to blame. This is not the road that mature human beings would waste their time with. It is the lower road taken by the emotional masses who believe whatever they're told to believe.
With proper leadership our country can overcome anything. Right now we have bad leadership. This is the reason there is so much social strife. When Trump returns to the Oval office the buck will stop at his desk. He will actually do something. How refreshing that will be.
Now we see your true colors.
If our world heats up just a bit more then the northern lands will be available for agriculture. They haven't been since the crustal shift of 12,000 years ago. This will be a renewal. Kind of like crop rotation. Or the farming practice of letting a field go to nature for a couple of seasons so that it can be renewed through natural growth and animal life.
It's true that if the sea levels rise there will be major populations migrating. But more will now be able to live comfortably in the far north. And the northern, Arctic seas will be free of ice and navigable for a change.
Humanity will find a way to deal with it. My major complaint and the thing that we conservatives fight against is the threat of living in authoritarian societies as a result of it. Those are never good.
But why am I worried. I remember the hype over Y2K. The world was going to end because computers would crash. Yeah sure!!! All the same voices that were yelling about that supposed event are now at it again over climate change. Meanwhile real, thinking people, sit quietly knowing that the fires of beserkness will eventually burn low.
In my next lifetime I will be born to the Martian colony. There, we will survive by cooperating, not arguing. How nice it will be.
Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.
No. I suggest to you that just because you say it's settled does not mean it is. So easy to toss out a slogan and then sit back with arms folded. Sorry. The science of climate change causes is still far from being settled regardless of the claims that you make.
In any case does it matter if you and I don't agree? Not in the slightest.
Meanwhile I do my bit. I have solar panels for lighting and computers in my home. I also designed and built a large solar water heater on a platform. I use it to pre-heat water as it enters the electric water heater. This was my own idea. It works great and my electric bill is down by more than $80 a month even in the winter. I have more than 65 years of experience in the broad area of electrical engineering field. I haven't time for brain dead college professors who rant and rave over things they know nothing about.
I don't need scientists to lead the way. This is another thing that we conservatives are good at.
Thanks for the comment.
I'm not worried at all about the next one, because I've got my stash, and everyone else is an idiot.
We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children.
Look at our congress. Tribes!!!! Each side swearing they are correct and the other are wrong. What science, I ask, can make this emotional non-thinking go away?
In climate change it's the same way. Each side claims to have the science on their side. Even the most careless application of logic will show that this can't be correct. But instead of working together to resolve the issues we fight, fight, fight... calling out the other side. You're an idiot. He or she is an idiot. No. You people are climate deniers.
We humans deserve exactly what we now have and that is our fault. All of us are to blame.
I'm in my eighties now. I won't have to be here much longer to see the world go to hell in a hand basket just because emotionalism modifies science.
Actually. 1960—1970ish would be fine. For the whole world.
Pot meet kettle. The only one "modifying" clear science here is you. You say you disagree with the conclusion we're in a man-made climate crisis but I've not seen you waylay even one claim of, for instance, the IPCC let alone rebut the overall argument. It's only "it's political". Well, no shit Sherlock, mass mobilisation is effectively done through politics.
Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.
Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.
:clap:
Yes indeed.
The 1890s required a lot of coal. Remember London was in a giant coal smoke fog back then?
The 70s was post combustion engine, so that won't work.
We need the technology of 2065: fusion.
This is excellent.
Quoting frank
I see what you did there :D
Quoting Varnaj42
Quoting Varnaj42
You say three things here:
1. Climate change poses no threats to humanity.
2. Climate change occurs as part of a natural process.
3. Even if #2 is false and humans cause climate change, you're doing what you can to stem it by choosing non carbon based sources of energy.
My questions:
1. If climate change poses no threats, then why bother playing junior scientist and hazard an opinion as to its cause? Whether it's caused by humans or sun spots, you've just declared it no big deal, so why worry about what's causing it? Why this need to protect the reputation of humans?
2. If carbon based emissions are not the cause of climate change, why are you telling us about the cost savings measures you've found for your energy needs? Are you just giving us wise consumer advice?
We all were using a lot less energy in 1890, London's coal fog notwithstanding. The really bad smog episodes were caused by temperature inversion layers over London, plus lack of regulation.
Here's a graph of energy usage (in MTOE - million tons of oil equivalent) from https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consumption-1800-2000-results/
What would this kind of dramatic energy reduction mean?
1) much more walking
2) much more bicycling
3) electrified transit on light or heavy rails
4) much more physical labor
5) far fewer chemicals manufactured
6) organic farming, by default
7) much more exposure to hot and cold weather (no air conditioning)
8) much less consumption of dry goods (clothing, for instance), and other manufactured goods
9) no plastics!
10) a smaller population and not by choice
That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century. Can you explain?
I don't think the rate of emission matters much. Produce the emission size from the 1890s over a period of 500 years and you've got a climate crisis.
Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway.
Population is contracting in all the core nations. The next generation will be the first to experience the problems associated with this. Japan will be first I think.
I does matter some, there are carbons sinks that have more time to draw carbon out of the atmosphere, and slower emissions do mean slower temperature change, which give us and eco-systems more time to adapt.
Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming.
It's a thorny issue in more than one way, but a large part of the problem is that acknowledging all the different aspects of the issue, poses fundamental problems to all current dominant political ideologies... They don't seem to be able to incorporate what would be needed into their ideology without becoming something else.
But some countries are not headed for the mushroom shaped demographic distribution in the near future (large elderly population on top, narrow stem of young people). France, India, and the United States, for 3 examples, will probably maintain a good age distribution while also growing slowly. However, projecting very far into the future (like 2123) is a very uncertain game, given how global warming might result in significant crop failure, disease outbreaks, intolerable wet-bulb temperatures over large areas, and so on. (The 'wet bulb' temperature is a measure of heat and humidity. At 95ºF, and high humidity, humans can not cool off -- we experience heat stroke. If we don't get cooled off, then we die fairly quickly.)
The oceans scrub about 3 bmt's per year, so I guess you're right. :nerd:
I this retired electrical engineer does believe that the Earth system is cyclic in many ways. Several of these, in their normal movements, affect the atmosphere which, in turn, causes changes.
We humans are a fear based species. We're followers. We are given suggestions and off we go yelling and screaming in the streets. The world is ending. The world is ending. No. I don't buy into the hype. Sure the climate is changing. I disagree about the causes though. I refuse to be sent on a guilt trip over it by the great masses of unschooled lemmings.
I have been toying with solar systems for more than 50 years now, since I was in my peak employment age years. I like using the sun and wind too to enhance my method of living. This is nothing at all to do with fear of climate change. It's about being closer to energy independence. I am not a follower. I walk my own paths in life. I will never be told what to think or do. Never.
I notice in your reply you use all the standard phrases and slogans. Without carbon dioxide our planet would dry up and become a dead rock. But, but, but.... we frantically rave on about the threat it poses to our world. Horsefeathers!!!!
Quoting Varnaj42
Yeah, I’m sure the world’s climate scientists haven’t considered “normal movements” or natural variance. You’ve cracked the case.
Quoting Varnaj42
We’re also a denial-based species, as you demonstrate well.
Unlike you I have zero interest in convincing anyone of anything. I simply state my opinions. But look at the results? For merely speaking of my beliefs I am subjected to scorn by you.
Climate change is not a matter of beliefs. It's here. I simply say it's a part of the natural cycle of the planet. For that I am ridiculed and cast out of society? Isn't there some little bit of maturity inside of you, somewhere? Why can't you accept that each of us has the right to our own opinions without being trashed through mindless arguments?
"My climate change scientist can beat up your climate change scientist." What drivel!!!
If you're 80 years old, don't you see the same stories played out over and over? Can't you tell where the train will end up by just looking at where the tracks are laid down?
So you just like announcing your unbiased skepticism about a topic you don’t understand. Cool. Maybe I’ll start one about how I think quantum mechanics are woke. I’m equally qualified to judge that field.
Globalism has been around for a long time. It's quickened it's pace though. Mass, instant communications, the entire planet being a "local call" through live streaming has enabled the Gobbels of our day to out do themselves in their efforts to influence popular thought. As a result we are reduced to a need to join one camp or the other. Those of us who remain neutral while trying to speak in rational terms become social outcasts.
None of this has happened before in my lifetime. None of it.
Let me here say something quite controversial. As bad as Hitler was in his treatment of Jews and others who dared to speak against him, the man was capable of profound insights. These are revealed in his signature work, Mein Kampf. He foresaw the threat of globalism in the form of communist thought.
In the recent history of the world, no form of government has resulted in more deaths than communism. In every land that it touches, millions perish through civil strife or as a result of mass incarceration. One thing that globalism is very good at is forcing people to obey.... or else. This is a hallmark trait of communism.
Is this really the world we want to live in?
Never in my time have I seen anything even close to this rapidly unfolding drama which is so threatening. We can no longer even trust our electoral process.
I am afraid that we will lose...
What’s childish is being an 80-year-old coming to a philosophy forum and declaring that climate change is only “natural,” then chastising people for being “woke” and emotional for believing otherwise.
If you don’t want to be insulted, then stop insulting peoples intelligence. Next time take 10 minutes to learn something about the science of climate change.
Don't worry. Everything is going to be ok.
Good. Ditch the vague appreciation of Hitler though. That's bullshit.
At 86, and a one-time meteorologist for the USAF - doing weather briefings for fighter/interceptor squadrons and nuclear packed B52s going back and forth to the edge of the Soviet Union - certified by completing a post-graduate curriculum at the University of Chicago - I am probably qualified to speak here.
Years ago climatology was a mostly statistical study and was considered the "basket-weaving" class we took. Many from that generation may have similar opinions of climate science - the modern version. It's much more sophisticated now, but I suspect it has its flaws, and, like quantum theory, these are beyond the realms of common discourse. However, I think what you read from reputable sources is fairly accurate. Where I personally differ is the assumption humans will be able to deflect the consequences to any substantial degree. So it's best to prepare for what is to a large degree beyond our control.
The Earth's movement in our galaxy is beyond our present abilities to alter.
It's not for evesdropping on military sites that the Chinese buy farm lands along the Canadian border with the US. They look long term into the probable future, seeing that agriculture may well move north.
This is totally unbalanced with respect to how nature operates. Nature operates in balance/equilibrium. So destroying it to uphold a notion of infinite economic growth is what is causing a rebound effect - a countering mechanism from mother nature against what is basically "a cancerous growth" - infinite and all consuming - human economy - the pillaging and plundering of resources that work to stabilise the entire system.
Our economic beliefs are making the planet ill. We are pulling the cards out from the bottom of a finely stacked pyramid. And planet earth's immune defences are coming against us slowly but surely. She is getting feverish
Sadly your diagnosis is entirely correct, and @Varnaj42 will no doubt welcome the cleansing medicine that Nature will prescribe. But personally I'm not down on the children, I blame the parents.
Okay. And that’s worth talking about. But it’s a different animal from what I was responding to.
Quoting jgill
Yes— and how is this relevant to climate change?
Lowering CO2 emissions is well within our abilities.
Milankovitch Cycles
But I see warming acts on the cycles as well. Learned something.
Quoting Mikie
No argument there. A noble effort if done cautiously with regard to human comfort/misery.
:up:
[sup]— AFP via Al Jazeera · May 24, 2023[/sup]
Someone's busy.
Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.
[quote=Paul Krugman]
But our belated move to do something about global warming will at best slow, not reverse, the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so the climate won’t improve — at best, it will get worse more slowly. So for the foreseeable future we’ll be facing ever bigger climate-related disasters. And this future has already begun. Just look up.
[/quote]
I do not believe any regulatory system that depends upon universal harmony and peaceful cooperation is worth taking seriously. If we do achieve that utopian state, let's first get Russia out of Ukraine. That seems more pressing than the smoke in New England.
I also think climate change policies will weaken those nations that adopt them economically and politically. We live in a politically hostile world and that weakening will cause more immediate dangers to safety and well being than rising tides.
That is, I'll concede man-made climate change, but still contend maintaining the status quo is the best solution and dealing with the climate change as it comes is the best course.
Then I suggest learning more about the topic. This is pure ignorance.
I cited my source for the proposition that climate change policies that are not adhered to by major climate change contributors will not be effective.
Additionally, I presented a judgment, which addresses what I wish to achieve, so it's not a dispute over what the science shows, but what my goals are.
What I want is to maintain economic and political superiority over other nations and my current standard of living. This, along with the fact that great sacrifice in this area by me will be greatly diminished by non-compliance of other nations, and those nations will gain a competitive advantage, I choose to focus on responding to climate change as opposed to stopping it.
To the extent there are token measures that I can engage in to appease my opponents so that they will have less political influence over me, I will do that. That is, I'll drive an electric car and pretend it matters, if that means I can avoid more restrictive efforts.
This isn't ignorance at all. It's an evil to a competing worldview I don't share. I see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. My effort is to maximize productivity because with that comes greater personal freedom and a higher standard of living. This view predominates, even if it is very counter to your own view, which is why a good part of the world is doing as it's doing.
If the goal is in reducing the environmental impact of humanity in the planet, my focus is terribly flawed. If it's the other goals I've pointed out, it's not.
This needs a cited source? :roll:
That doesn't make sense to me. First of all, demand is driven mostly by consumer society "the rich North", which are countries that have managed to align on a lot of policies already. If we change what we allow to be imported, we can effectively change policy abroad without getting those countries explicitly on board.
Second, even if that doesn't work, our behaviour will change the speed at which the climate crisis unfolds, giving ourselves for time to adapt.
Third, a lot of adaptation will already be in place of we start now instead of later, making it cheaper, more manageable and less disruptive.
Fourth, I don't believe where there's an issue that affects us all we cannot find common ground.
[quote= Hanover's cited source]As China’s energy transition gathers pace through the expansion of its renewable energy sources – both wind and solar, authorities are faced with the challenge of storing away the surpluses to integrate their supplies into the country’s gigantic power system and ensure grid stability.[/quote]
We are not having to do it without China. At the moment, we are having to do it without you.
There's the rub. Capitalism isn't the defining feature of humanity, it is one feature of human life. Unfortunately, capitalism functions not only to maximize concentration of capital, as Marx describes it, it maximizes concentration on capital. That is, it strives to assimilate everything into an economic viewpoint. However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being.
No, but it's profoundly shaped what we are as a species today:
Quoting Pantagruel
If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that?
You're suggesting an alignment by the rich north to impose economic sanctions on China and Russia in the hopes of altering their behavior and bringing them in compliance with Western economic policy. Seems like a hostile approach that might result in worse immediate outcomes than the long range consequences of global warming.
Looking at this the other way, would the US alter its policies based upon Chinese tariffs, or would it double down on the idea of achieving economic independence? I tend to think the latter, which just means that I don't think we can expect to force our opposition to our way of thinking by withholding some of the things they want.
Quoting Benkei
This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. If that is the case, maybe focus all our attention right now on finding methods to adapt and allowing climate change to continue occurring at its current pace.
For example, if the water is spilling over the dam, we could throw bags on there to give us ten years (instead of five) to figure out how to protect the village below before the dam fully collapses or we could just start figuring out how to protect the village right now in anticipation of the dam fully collapsing in five years. That is, do I want 10 years of expensive, futile labor or 5 years of status quo, followed by the same outcome that I more quickly prepared for.
We could argue over which idea is best, but they are both reasonable alternatives.
Quoting Benkei
I think we should start now. That's what I was saying. Chop chop.
Quoting Benkei
That's just unfortunately not the case. It's why there is war all over the world. I'd like to think we could sit down with Russia, China, North Korea and whoever else and work through all this. If we could do that, then we'd resolve issues far more pressing than climate change as well.
Quoting unenlightened
:rofl:
I suppose I could better cooperate from time to time.
The truth is though that my carbon footprint isn't part of the real problem. I'm just a rank and file citizen, limited to purchasing whatever might be in the marketplace, which means I can't buy a toilet that uses the amount of water I had when I was younger and I can't fill my car with fully leaded gasoline. I'm doing my share willfully or not, but it's all doubtfully doing a whole lot of anything.
I agree your carbon footprint isn't the issue, it was more your lack of support I was lamenting. That dam bursting in perhaps a century or so is going to raise sea levels and flood some quite large villages.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-glaciers-melted#:~:text=There%20is%20still%20some%20uncertainty,coastal%20city%20on%20the%20planet.
That's a lot of adapting to do, before any consideration of the actual temperature and climate changes. Is anyone quickly preparing for that? Or slowly?
Since the "well-being of the global biosphere" is synonymous with the healthy balanced operation of its component systems, of which we are one, I can only surmise that it would look like an improvement.
Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?
Probably not worse. In the 1970s there was a lot of focus on reducing pollution and managing the environment intelligently. A lot of that is still in place, though eroded by conservative policies.
I was talking about a bigger transition to managing the environment on a global level; managing the transition out of a growth model, managing the transition to non-carbon based energy sources. But more, what would we have to become to carry those changes forward on a permanent basis? A global government? A new religion?
I think if you want something to become real, you have to imagine it. You can't bring about change by wagging an index finger. You know?
One-hundred percent. Presumably there will be an increase in the general level of social awareness, out of which consensus emerges the forms of governance we deem acceptable. In Canada, there is a growing trend where the government sponsors and supports indigenous-led environmental initiatives.
e.g. Natural Climate Solutions
Area-based Conservation
I'd go one better, and get behind indigenous-led governance. Our indigenous groups have always attempted to live in harmony with nature. It's an attitude whose time is long overdue. If you look at the real numbers of politicians involved criminal self-promotion in violation of the public trust, the need for a really new approach seems clear.
I think attaining these other goals cannot be separated from humanities impact on the planet. It's not only about people having different values, but also about not fully thinking through or acknowledging the ramifications and impacts of climate change and other ecological issues we are facing now. If we do little to mitigate, we'll have a progressively harder time to increase or even maintain standards of living.
I do share your scepticism about the effectivity of global cooperation on this. Geo-political interests and competitivity-loss make it very difficult. But at the same time, if shared interests become high enough in maintaining some semblance of a liveable biosphere, maybe they can come to some minimal deal.
In Europe there already has been a decent amount of social awareness of the problem. One war and energy-prices skyrocketing, and that social awareness gets thrown by the wayside... people will choose short term energy-security over long-term ecological impact every time.
The real issue is that our whole economy and society is built on fossil fuels. Aside from energy in the most dense and use-friendly form, plastics, steel, fertilizer, concrete, etc etc.... all the pillars of our economy are derived from refining fossil fuels. We have no idea how to replace those "on scale".
Advocates of a green transition, or green growth have no idea what they are talking about from any practical point of view (engineering, materials, financial, energy), it's pure political theory-crafting without any base in reality.
The reason indigenous governance and harmonious living with nature won't save us should be clear, we are with 8 billion people living in a globalised high tech world... that is a totally different world from the one in which indigenous people developed their ideas.
We do need a new approach yes, one that is serious about what can be done and takes all the different constraints into consideration.
I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).
So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.
This sounds reasonable, but I don't think this is how it actually works, at least not on the societal scale. How many times in history has a giant transition really been the result of people imagining a new world? I would guest not that many times.
How we get to a new system, is the previous system breaking and being forced to adapt to new circumstances. Necessity is the mother of invention.
This is also why people are having difficulty envisioning the future now (and why I think all current political ideologies are totally off base), we can't predict and see past a phase shift.
The idea that the environment needs to be safeguarded because it is essential to life scales up just fine as far as I can see.
It doesn't work because in a global economy you get outcompeted by those that cannibalize the environment for any kind of edge... so then there's a systemic pressure against this idea. I personally like it to be clear.
Also I would say that there is a real tension between feeding all of the worlds population and safeguarding the environment. At this point we probably need to continue large-scale mono-culture to get high enough yields... and this is highly destructive for the environment, so much so that it is probably the main cause for bio-diversity loss.
True, but when we pick up the pieces, maybe we'll remember the things we dreamed of before it all fell apart.
It’s the new line for those who seek to delay what needs to be done: China. The reality is that China has taken bolder action on climate change then the US, which is embarrassing. Up until the IRA, the US had next to nothing noteworthy.
Yes, China and India will have to cut emissions drastically. But we have less control over that than we do our own behavior and policies — and, as a global superpower, our leadership sends a clear message to the rest of the world.
So this reasoning is, putting it as politely as I can, deeply flawed. We can and should do as much as possible to cut emissions as soon as possible and as drastically as possible — regardless of what China or India do. No sense waiting around for other countries to lead the way when we’re supposedly the leader.
Quoting Hanover
For the record, this is a strawman. No one is claiming the goal is utopia— nor is utopia necessary, any more than dealing with the ozone hole.
The invasion of Ukraine is important, of course. But just because this is true doesn’t mean unprecedented wildfires whose smoke has wafted throughout the northeast should be trivialized. That “smoke in New England” isn’t just a few rich people being inconvenienced, it’s a sign of what’s in store.
Quoting Hanover
It really is ignorance. You don’t have to oppose capitalism — as I happen to — to have sensible solutions. A good example is Jeremy Grantham, a capitalist if there ever was one: https://youtu.be/sAHj6mJrzns
What’s funny is that there’s plenty of profit to be made and plenty of work to be done. We need to electrify everything, which means transforming our electric grid— and retrofitting buildings, producing more heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, wind turbines, EVs, etc etc. We can use government subsidy and investment to help the transformation— just as we did with the fossil fuel based economy.
None of this has anything to do with destroying capitalism, really — only a psychotic and vicious variation of capitalism, one that’s dedicated to destroying the normal functioning of human life to serve the interests of Exxon.
I'm ok with capitalism. But it clearly requires stricter regulation. A socialistically-managed capitalism could work.
There's nothing hostile about raising levies on certain types of products or products from certain countries. This already happens with anti-dumping duties and tax treaties or in attempts to steer consumer choices. Obviously, changing consumer choices through tax discentives/incentives is not an exact science but I doubt solar panels would have been as popular now without them.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think the analogy works because buying more time usually consists of protective measures and as such this is not really mutually exclusive. More like which combination of measures is the most effective. I think a lower energy dependence for production and services, which directly correlates to CO2 levels, is both environmentally and economically sound if the increased efficiency doesn't lead to higher usage. A lower dependence will mean you're less likely to be affected by disruptive economic events (wars, sanctions, etc.).
Quoting Hanover
But historically it has. There are a multitude of multilateral treaties that prove even enemies will agree on all sorts of things. WTO, UN, Geneva and the Hague conventions, Vienna Convention on the laws of treaties, Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, etc.
And the Montreal Protocol that has been ratified by all member states of the United Nations.
TV meteorologist quits after receiving threats and harassment over climate change coverage
[sup]— Rachel Ramirez, Laura Paddison · CNN · Jun 23, 2023[/sup]
@ChrisGloninger · Jul 16, 2022
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ChrisGloninger/status/1548382916085817344[/tweet]
The CNN article has various links.
What the heck?
https://mtclimatecase.flatheadbeacon.com/latest-updates/
Held v. Montana is the case.
Smoke blanketing the northern US.
Extreme heat in Texas (upwards of 110-120 degrees) — hotter than 99% of the world at some points.
Another summer, more records breaking and more once-in-a-generation events every month.
But at least climate change is a Chinese hoax. So nothing to worry about.
What are you talking about?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg3781
It’s a start.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950
The soil is also an excellent carbon sink, and nature is the best therapist.
But alas, the machines have already taken over and their servants are our politicians.
Who would have thought that adhering to an intricately complex system that has evolved through trial and error for millions of years would yield better results in terms of stability, health, and efficiency compared to humanity winging it?
You all diligently buy nothing but certified organic or biodynamic food then I assume?
The solution already exists and the benefits are, as pointed out, obvious.
So what were people waiting for?
Too often this is all somebody else's fault.
I buy everything that has sustainable branding. Of course, it's hard to know if they actually follow it, but at least in the EU, the regulations surrounding it make it hard for companies to circumvent laws and regulations; therefore, it's a bit easier to trust the official markings on products, at least in Sweden. On top of that, buying from local producers is something people should do more if the option exists, as well as buying food that's within season more than out of season.
If you tried to imply some hypocrisy I'm sorry to disappoint, I've been eating and buying with sustainability in mind for years to reap the health benefits, keep bad chemicals out of production and support the local biodiversity. I don't want to live in a future where I breathe industrial smog with cancer-inducing products everywhere I go. If people and politicians had the brain to understand this as well, other places would not be so fucked up.
But as with all climate-changing industries and ways of life that are lazier than sustainability, people just don't care until reality hits them with a sledgehammer. And that hammer has started to swing now. And each time I see that hammer hit people who ignored or fought against sustainable solutions I can't help but feel a good amount of schadenfreude.
It seems that the hammer is the required tool to get people into serious action. A carrot doesn't work, they will just buy the least expensive mass produced chemically sprayed carrot possible and then get surprised when they die too soon.
Just keep the wild fires, heat waves, cold snaps, massive storms, floodings and stuff coming. At some point people will wake the fuck up.
You're a rhetorical device in the argument, I don't care what you personally do (unless perhaps, you're wanting to make the argument that no-one is hypocritical in this respect?)
Quoting Christoffer
Yes FSC timber is a good example of this even in Europe where their traceability if sometimes shockingly poor, but I think it's a good message nonetheless that consumers demand it, even if the initial response of companies is to first try and have the best of both worlds.
Quoting Christoffer
I can sympathise with the pessimism, but I don't agree. I think people are not uncaring, I don't think you (and others following your efforts) are just better people. There's factors which put people in better or worse positions to take up those options, but I think it's evident that, if that's true, those factors are not the ones traditionally cited (wealth, freedom) as an abundance of both doesn't seem to do anything. I think the factors are more psychological, more to do with group dynamics and as such if we want to help the situation we'd be advised to look there. But at the very least, even if one disagrees with that theory, it's evident that simply shouting it from the rooftops doesn't work. Something has to change with the approach.
Hence the reflection.
I fail to see your point?
Quoting Isaac
People who are unable to exist in a sustainable way with their environment due to things like low income, geographical placement etc. shouldn't be blamed for anything, but the privileged who keeps ignoring all warnings, keeps acting like their simple act doesn't count, keeps cutting corners in their businesses to maximize profit rather than sustainable profit for environmental sustainability, and politicians who worry more about their ego and power than working for the society that elected them; they simply are the baddies in this matter.
The amount of stupidity or laziness it takes to not understand the simple consequences of major societal actions, like not understanding the effect of spewing particles into the air, not only for CO2 related issues, but the general air quality of the place where people live and breathe and how obvious the connection is to worsened public health. People should be marching in masses, banging on politicians doors to demand action against such things, but they don't. They are riddled with apathy and laziness, hypnotized by mindless entertainment to the point when even the entertainment industry tries to produce cautionary tales about these issues and even then it doesn't transcend their lazy minds.
We live in a time when the knowledge and understanding of how industry and the general publics behavior affects the environment and health isn't some academic knowledge and/or scientists working with complex research. It exists in the general knowledge, education and culture of the general public. Everyone with at least a minor understanding and interest of their place and existence in the modern world should have thoughts and moral thinking about these things, but they're ignorant. And if group dynamics is the problem, then we should blame media, but as I mentioned, even there, in movies, series, documentaries, literature, and even marketing they keep talking about sustainability and its importance while the general public ignores the message.
It takes effort to ignore this amount of knowledge and information for anyone living in a society that keeps information free and uncensored. No one is shouting from the roof top anymore, the information is everywhere around us and people just don't care.
Is it that people don't understand how to vote? How to put pressure on politicians and industries? Have people just given up trying? Is everyone living online and doesn't understand that there's a real world around them that needs actual actions? Or are they mindlessly ignoring everything until that sledgehammer hits them?
How can anyone be ignorant of these topics today? When I ask people why they don't buy things in a sustainable way, or act in other ways for it, it simply comes down to "it's expensive", "oh, I didn't have the time", "oh, what would my act be able to accomplish" and so on. This is from people who got the cash, who got the time and are educated enough to know that each little action from each singular person, affects the whole of society.
Laziness, carelessness, ignorance, egotism and stupidity. There's little reason today for the privileged to make excuses and justifications for their ignorance of these environmental problems.
There wasn't one (there), you know what rhetoric means, yes?
Quoting Christoffer
So you're prepared to stand by the assertion that you're uniquely less lazy, careless, egotistical, or stupid than most? Is that genetics, do you think. Or are you just a better person? What's your theory for how you turned out so hardworking, caring, humble and clever?
Quoting Isaac
Respect dude.
I'd wish I could get all my foodstuffs locally but alas I'm stuck with cheese and eggs.
Adoption of the necessary policies has to do a lot with framing as well I think. You shouldn't do XY and Z or the world will burn! Or maybe: "If we do XY and Z we will have more nature, more free time and more security". It's governments now going down the road of the techocratic control of society, which is, if we're not careful, a prelude to fascism but in any case just raises a shit ton of resistance and distrust at a time where trust and solidarity need to be peak. Leaders who can bridge these gaps are what we need but leaders like that don't tend to go into politics because who in their right mind would be passionate about the shitfest that's modern politics nowadays?
No, of course not. As I said, they were a lead-in to the point about personal choices affecting corporate decisions. We can't escape the fact that if we all stopped buying nonorganic food, the fertiliser industry would collapse overnight (maybe not a good thing jobwise). We can make progress by other means, but it doesn't mean there's no need to analyse the personal reasons.
Quoting Benkei
Almost the opposite for me (veg, milk and meat but no processed dairy). But sometimes the imported stuff uses less fuel overall than, say, heated greenhouses. And organic-elsewhere vs nonorganic-local is a close call usually.
Quoting Benkei
Totally. People's responses are what's missing from the debate, it's too often framed (as above) as idiots vs the intelligentsia and who's realistically going to come round to that framing.
Put a celebrity in flares and half the world is wearing them the next day. Why? Because they like to feel part of a group (putting aggressive advertising to one side for now). Ban entry to the 'save the world' group and people will look elsewhere. Make entry too easy and nothing will get done (no one's going to commit more than they need to). But this constant drive to divide up the world into ever smaller combative groups might sell webspace, but it's sure not going to encourage collective action.
Quoting Benkei
I was fortunate to have been raised with creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions. You know, what would constitute a pretty normal kind of upbringing in which a person gets the necessary tools to function around facts, knowledge, judgement and how to behave against other people. But that's just my guess since others should judge my behavior for what it is rather than me talking about myself.
I do however find your point with that to be rather weirdly formulated. Almost like whenever a person shows attributes generally considered to be in line with being a "good person" (in this context), then they should in some ways feel bad for being like that in contrast to people who don't care about this extremely topic the world is facing right now. The proof is in the pudding, it's obvious that people aren't caring for the environment as much as we need to based on what people express as a general public. Even when it's talked about everywhere in media, too few cares about it. So few that there's no majority in democratic elections to focus on these issues.
I just think your ad hominem making this about me instead of the population who does not care is rather odd. What's you point? Isn't it better to ask why people don't care rather than ask why some do?
Quoting Isaac
You fail to see that it's the antagonists of actions to make the world sustainable who are the ones dividing the world, not the ones who propose actions to fight climate change. All of us have been fighting for inclusion of everyone acting together and getting as many on board that fight as possible, but what does it matter when we have politicians and a large portion of people who just don't care? It's not our fault that the world is going to climate hell when we've been trying to get information, education and action going for many many years.
I don't get how you are somehow blaming the polarization on the ones who's trying to globally get everyone on board to solve this? Why don't you ask the ones who are working hard to fight against fixing climate change what their motivations are? If they were on board we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Right. Good start, so we need to do something about parenting? How do we get the next generation of children raised with "creativity and curiosity as well as understanding consequences of actions"? Change schools? Change working hours for new parents? Tackle inflated qualification thresholds to give more free time? Or does shouting about how we're all doomed because of the stupid rednecks somehow get children raised better?
Quoting Christoffer
Well clearly it doesn't because you've just been bemoaning the lack of such people. It must be quite an uncommon upbringing, no?
Quoting Christoffer
I don't think I've ever suggested you should feel bad about it. I'm suggesting the we think about why you're the way you are when others aren't. Since we evidently need more people like you and fewer like the others that would seem to be the top priority.
Quoting Christoffer
It's the same question. Why do some care and others don't.
Quoting Christoffer
You know about disagreement, right? Your "creative" upbringing included the fact that epistemic peers disagree? Or did miss that lesson? I don't "fail to see", I disagree with you. I might be wrong, of course, as might you. Presumably, that's why we're discussing the matter, to find out? Or is this just a lecture? I thought egotism was one of the traits you were blessed to have avoided?
I come from a principle that humans are naturally quite cooperative and egalitarian (at least within-group). This foundation comes from a study of hunter-gatherer social dynamics. It too might be wrong, of course, but it leads me to the necessary conclusion that if people are acting in non-cooperative ways, greedy, selfish or careless, then something has caused this. If people, like your good self, are acting in cooperative, caring and selfless ways, then nothing has 'happened' as such, that's just how humans are. As such, the only relevant question is what has happened to the selfish ones.
Quoting Christoffer
What's not to get? Or do you mean you just disagree? It's quite simple, I'm wondering if the exclusory rhetoric (telling people they're stupid for holding the beliefs they do) leads people to become more entrenched in those beliefs, and seek out more welcoming groups which might seek to exploit their sense of ostracisation to further radicalise their opposition.
Record heatwaves sweep the world from US to Japan via Europe
[sup]— Agence France-Presse via Times of Malta · Jul 15, 2023[/sup]
Quoting Bob Batterson
Yet, the report has numbers, evidence, tangibles, unlike the conspiracy theorist.
Yes it just depressing, imagine this 20 years further, and probably minimum another 1° C of global warming on top of it. We'll have to deal with this the rest of our lives... but don't worry things have never been better according to idiot geniuses like Steven Pinker, Hans Rosling and like, because the numbers say so!
Anybody?
I don't think anybody really knows BC. Global warming is typically presented in averages, 1° C, 1,5 C, 2° C rise in global average etc... actual temperatures we experience are not averages, and can fluctuate from year to year, place to place. This is by the way probably the biggest issue with climate change, that the extremes will get more extreme... We don't need an average to have people die, or crops fail, one day of extreme weather is enough.
What we are experiencing now could be an outlier, el nino combined with some other chance-events, and temperature could return to the quote unquote "normal" expected climate change adjusted temperatures in the coming years. But it could also be that climate is changing faster than we expected. I don't think tipping points have been incorporated into climate modelling al that well yet, and the IPCC and scientists in general do seem to be on the conservative side in their estimates to avoid being seen as alarmist/unreliable. "Faster than expected" does seem to be a phrase that comes up alot.
It seems obviously the case. Sea temps, air temps, Antarctic ice formation and extreme weather events are all off the charts, at once. What science has been warning about for at least 20 years is happening in plain sight. It was also pointed out in respect of the Antarctic sea ice, that the diminution of the floating ice pack won’t have that much of an effect, as the total volume of water is not changed much by it, BUT that it also serves to slow down the glacial flows into the ocean. And if they accelerate markedly, then we could be seeing sea-level changes measured in meters, not centimetres.
Tipping points aren't necessarily abrupt, it just means it's not as easy to go back to the previous state, sometimes because a positive feedback loop was triggered.
Quoting BC
It's El Nino. It's always hotter in some places (cooler in others) during El Nino events. Last year was a La Nina. I think it was the third in a row. It's usually cooler during a La Nina, but we had record highs. That signalled that when we changed to El Nino, it was going to make more record highs.
Of course weather is broadly influenced by climate, but only broadly.
A good source is this article from Science:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950#core-collateral-purchase-access
There are several potential tipping points, and it's very possible we'll set them off. If so, life as we know it is over. Maybe we adapt in some way, but it's an existential risk.
Half true. What you see and feel in your backyard is also related to the broader global changes. If you're in a draught, or caught in wildfires or a flood, or have your community uprooted by a hurricane -- that is all weather-related, yes, but also climate related. A warmer climate produces more floods, more draughts, more intense wildfires and stronger hurricanes. So while one hot day or one cold day in town X doesn't prove anything about global temperature, frequently extreme events are also not an accident, given what we know about climate change.
And this is an important point. It's unseasonably cool where I am. That's El Nino: it makes it cooler in some places. Likewise, climate change hasn't changed the average temps where I live at all. You can't go by your backyard.
The Science article was useful -- particularly the map of major events (tipping points) that could/would/will/might occur at different increases in the global temperature. If we are very lucky, and extremely successful in our efforts to limit the climate increase to less than 2ºC, the climate tipping points will be bad enough, at 3ºC and 4ºC, much worse.
At <2ºC, we can have Greenland and West Antarctic ice collapse, failure of the North Atlantic circulation system, and thawing of the Canadian permafrost.
Where do existential threats kick in? Mass existential threats or local existential threats? Local existential threats are here. IF Phoenix, AZ were to lose electric power for a day or two, the total deaths would be in the thousands -- given tightly sealed buildings and dependence on air conditioning, ventilation fans, and water pumps.
At 115ºF in Phoenix, dry heat or not, if you don't have access to a cool refuge, you have a very good chance of dying. Unfortunately, warm blooded animals are designed to maintain body heat, not cool one down quickly. As the internal body temperature rises from 98ºF towards 104ºF --107ºF tissue starts breaking down at the cellular level; heart failure or general organ failure (or melting of cell walls) ensues.
There are a lot of climate disasters we do not have to worry about because, as Jeff Goodell explains in his new book, The Heat Will Kill You First. [I don't recommend the book -- the title is a pretty good summary.]
Mass existential. Easy to see why, even with adaptation.
Not so much. Hurricanes, floods and wildfires are a normal part of earth's climate, thus observing a single episode tells the homeowner nothing about the relative state of the climate, say comparing preindustrial to current climate temps.
A Guardian UK article today ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/19/climate-crisis-james-hansen-scientist-warning
[quote=Wiki]Cycle 25
Main article: Solar cycle 25
Solar cycle 25 began in December 2019.[19] Several predictions have been made for solar cycle 25[20] based on different methods, ranging from very weak to strong magnitude. A physics-based prediction relying on the data-driven solar dynamo and solar surface flux transport models by Bhowmik and Nandy (2018) seems to have predicted the strength of the solar polar field at the current minima correctly and forecasts a weak but not insignificant solar cycle 25 similar to or slightly stronger than cycle 24.[21] Notably, they rule out the possibility of the Sun falling into a Maunder-minimum-like (inactive) state over the next decade. A preliminary consensus by a solar cycle 25 Prediction Panel was made in early 2019.[22] The Panel, which was organized by NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) and NASA, based on the published solar cycle 25 predictions, concluded that solar cycle 25 will be very similar to solar cycle 24. They anticipate that the solar cycle minimum before cycle 25 will be long and deep, just as the minimum that preceded cycle 24. They expect solar maximum to occur between 2023 and 2026 with a sunspot range of 95 to 130, given in terms of the revised sunspot number.[/quote]
Not the ones we’re seeing now, which are both felt locally and exacerbated by global trends.
It’s not either/or.
Your comment, while true, can only be verified through analysis of climate, not weather.
Yes, true.
But because it’s all felt locally, my hope (which is borne out with some polling) is that extreme weather will be connected to climate change.
Yes indeed.
"the rest of our lives" isn't very long for old people.
Just saying...
High sea surface temperature in North Atlantic
[sup]— Arctic News · Apr 22, 2023[/sup]
Record-breaking North Atlantic Ocean temperatures contribute to extreme marine heatwaves
[sup]— Copernicus · Jul 6, 2023[/sup]
Keep in mind that in one article you posted, the data only went back to 1980. In the other it was 1991. Any legit scientist would tell you that's not enough data to say something about the climate, so the use of "anomalous" doesn't mean what it appears to. Watch out for articles like that.
Did you see they discovered that the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago? That was in a previous interglacial, which is kind of astounding. It means the period we're in is on the mild side. The Greenland ice sheet could melt and we'd still be within normal limits for an interglacial.
We should absolutely be scared senseless. This is unprecedented in human history.
Assuming that your comment is true, what solutions are there that could REALISTICALLY work? I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. And many of the proposed solutions will actually make things worse.
And fossil fuels had not been used when the Greenland ice sheet melted 416,000 years ago. Something else caused it. This also suggests that we are still within normal limits for an interglacial.
Yea. When Greenland melts again, the oceans will rise by around 20 feet.
How long do you think that this will take?
I live about 1 m (metre/meter) above sea level. Currently sea level is rising by about 3 mm per year. I don't need to worry for about 333 years. Even if sea level is rising at 5mm per year I don't need to worry for about 200 years. As Bobby McFerrin sang, "Don't worry, be happy".
Plenty of solutions. They’re being employed as we speak. Hardly doomed. It’s a matter of time and political will.
When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, it’s not hard to see what the problem is.
It's hard to say, but you can look at what's happening now. The east coast of North America is shrinking as we speak. It's been doing that for years, so it would be a little crazy to buy property right on the beach. Rent maybe, but don't buy. I think the abrupt movements will be a result of hurricanes.
So just look around and decide based on that.
There is not much political will to do things that people don't want (if you live in a democracy).
Are most people really willing to make the changes that are required?
Please tell me some of the "plenty of solutions", and I will tell you why they won't work.
People do want them.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
No thanks. If it makes you feel better, believe whatever you’d like. Doesn’t change the facts.
I believe that it is incorrect to hold those companies responsible for 71% of global emissions. The companies are only supplying what people demand. It is people who must reduce their demands. Then the companies will reduce the supply.
The biggest problem is that most people don't understand the real facts (they believe propaganda). And they don't see what the real solutions are.
Many people are concerned about cows because they produce methane. Do you know how many cows there are in the world? Just under 1 billion.
32.62% are in India. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
20.62% are in Brazil. It is a major industry. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
10.77% are in China. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
9.47% are in the United States. Good luck trying to get them to reduce numbers.
I try to determine the facts. Many people just believe the propaganda.
It’s true that this is a common myth used by industry, but it’s on par with the “carbon footprint”: a way to divert blame to the individual consumer and away from the corporation. It’s brilliant propaganda, no doubt.
Exxon knew about the risks of climate change for decades and deliberately spread misinformation about it— all for profits. To turn around and put the onus on ordinary people is a complete joke.
And your answer is “good luck trying to reduce numbers.” Got it. Excellent analysis.
Who are you and why are you trolling this thread?
Imagine that an oil company shuts down. What would happen?
A new oil company would start up to meet the gap between demand and supply, or an existing oil company would grow to meet the gap between demand and supply.
How does that "solve" climate change?
People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. And even that might not be enough.
Cows are only one issue. There are many more.
I am not going to list them all. There are too many of them.
Please tell me any solution that you have and I will tell you why it won't work.
No, they don’t.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Like with the ludicrous cow example? Where you simply declare “good luck with that”? That’s not an analysis— it’s childish nonsense.
I’m not interested in the armchair thoughts of a random internet guy, or what s/he thinks is possible or isn’t possible. The facts are quite clear; the climate scientists are quite clear. The solutions are already available and being employed. I’ll repeat: the issue is time and political will. For some industries, like cement and steel, we’ll need more funding and research— even though technologies already exist that look promising.
But like I said, if you want to go on believing that it’s impossible, for whatever reason, you’re welcome.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. Sounds more like an ad hominem to me.
My wife and I did a little excursion for lunch on Sunday (my Mini got 60 mpg on the trip so I don't feel so bad about that). On the way home we stopped at a rural antique store. I parked next to a giant black Ford truck that was idling, nobody in it. The people were walking around browsing the store. They just left it idling for 20 minutes or more to keep the AC going. It wasn't even that hot out.
People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem. However if a majority of people won't wake up to the fact that they are causing the problem, they might still get behind initiatives to curtail production through increasingly stringent regulations, thereby indirectly regulating their own behaviours.
Plus he's right. People would have to reduce their demand.
Quoting Pantagruel
Every year I'm amazed at the demand for air conditioning. People make their dwellings colder in the summer than they would be in the winter.
To come here and announce “Give me any solution and I will tell you why it won’t work,” use an example of cows, declare “good luck with that,” and expect to be taken seriously, is exactly the issue. Whether it’s truly trolling or just childishness, I don’t know.
Granted, that last part was really poor. However, up until then I thought the points were legitimate. The best argument becomes meaningless when it declares itself unassailable.
Which is the same excuse fossil fuel companies give. Just lower your carbon footprint. Never mind that the entire continent of Africa emits only 4% of global emissions a one ton per capita. Their “inherent stupidity” and “ignoring their own culpability” is the “real” problem.
Give me a break. The issue is that the wealthier nations have benefited from fossil fuels for over a century and have crippled government ability to do anything about it. Despite having the solutions right in front of us.
If ordinary people are responsible for anything it’s allowing themselves to be fooled by propaganda. But even there the fight has never been fair.
It's almost like they enjoy the exaggerated sensation of being in control.
What does this have to do with anything? Obviously, the problem has to be addressed where it is created. If I read you right, you would advocate for a campaign of public awareness to drive political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly.
For a lot of people it's normal to sit watching television, eating carbs because the television is tedious and boring, probably taking some addictive benzos, so just crank up the air conditioner. I don't think they're trying to overconsume, it's just that their world is configured to keep them in that state.
Overhauling the system would be difficult to engineer.
It's doable. People would be healthier if we did. Reduced healthcare costs...
:up:
Sounded as if you were saying something along the carbon footprint line, which directs responsibility on the consumer a la the tobacco industry of yore. But if you weren’t saying that — my fault for misreading.
Yes. After COVID, I think people got a sense of just how quickly governments can move if they want to. Prior to that, at least in the states, the example was WWII — but that’s simply not as visceral (or remembered).
Tomato tomato.
Being among generations where future generations say "They knew, and didn't do anything" isn't the best legacy...
Just saw this. Accurate.
Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. Haven't they heard of Zoom meetings?
I have not only heard of Zoom meetings, I've participated. They do not seem to work very well in establishing a practical consensus and strategy between parties with divergent interests.
But if your unspoken suggestion is that because scientists in their private lives conform to the society as it exists and functions, rather than the one they think we should be working towards, and that this is a hypocrisy that invalidates climate change, then it is either a foolish error, or a deliberate misleading. I wonder which?
Another climate denial retort. What a shocker.
So I’m seeing now that you’re just a fairly average climate denier coming here to spread old, tired canards. Scroll up for responses.
Let me guess:
- The climate is always changing.
- Climate scientists the world over are involved in some kind of conspiracy involving controlling people for a New World Order.
- Climate change is happening, but it’s from natural variation, not CO2 buildup.
- Celebrities and scientists use planes/cars/anything involving fossil fuels— bam, climate change is refuted.
- CO2 is good for us.
Etc etc.
Look about right? Thought so.
Why not run along before embarrassing yourself further about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant? :up:
Good grief.
There is nothing "average" about my views on climate change. Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change.
Quoting Mikie
If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous.
I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth (see the following graph).
I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average winter temperature, and the average summer temperature for each country.
I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country. I have a nice graph which shows the combined data.
Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you?
Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.
Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).
No, there is. They fall right in the meaty part of the curve of climate denial. Fairly boring, actually.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
No, it’s a very real problem. Your characterization of the solution, and your dismissal, is ludicrous.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Good, so you know very well that the temperature is increasing, and at a very alarming rate. I’m glad you can read a graph.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Yep. And from the other ignorant things you’ve said so far, perhaps below average.
Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Since you claim to want a discussion, and aren’t here to troll, lets begin. Let me know where you get confused…
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleoCO2_2020dot_1400_2.jpg
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
I never said "private jets". You are misquoting me.
Doesn't change the substance of this hypocrisy argument you want to make.
The only thing that confuses me is how you can have such a simplistic view of climate change.
Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment:
- how much water vapor was in each glass container? Water vapor, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas.
- what was the concentration of CO2 in the glass container which had more CO2 ? Was the concentration of CO2 extremely high in that container?
- you say that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest. But was there a temperature difference between the two containers after a time period long enough for equilibrium to be established?
- were the two glass containers subjected to a day/night cycle like the Earth is?
- Is the Earth in a glass container?
I look forward to reading your answers.
Are you writing a dissertation on Eunice Foote and her experiments? You seem very interested in this specific case.
Anyways that should be discussed in its own topic, don't you think?
Well done.
We have been reconfiguring the world for centuries -- true. It was definitely not "easy".
The Industrial Revolution demanded extremely strenuous efforts from hundreds of millions of workers, animals, and machines. Further, it took a couple of centuries to accomplish (and, of course, raise CO2 levels enough to make life increasingly difficult).
Take automobiles. There are about 1 billion cars on the world's roads, almost all of them burning fossil fuel. Replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion batteries, and the building generating capacity to keep them all charged, will not be easy.
There are, roughly, 140 million houses just in the US. Most of them are heated or cooled with fossil fuel (directly or indirectly) and many of the houses are poorly insulated. Electrifying 140 million homes and building the requisite wind and solar generating plants will not be easy.
Even acquiring the land and permits to build wind and solar plants is difficult. Building long power transmission lines between windmills and cities requires the acquiescence of many litigious, uncooperative agents.
And so on and so forth.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Quoting Mikie
Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ?
Here is one example. There are many more.
There are nearly 12 million people who live in Moscow, Russia. All temperatures are in degrees Celsius.
– the average temperature of the coldest month = -12.1
– the average temperature of the year = +4.4
– the average temperature of the hottest month = +22.1
Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? Or are they having street parties to welcome global-warming?
Note that you can still freeze to death at a street party in Moscow. Be sure to take a warm jacket.
Most people want a hospitable world for future generations. One thing we could do to contribute to that would be to stop emitting CO2. Short of that, slowing down would help.
The people who live in Moscow are probably most concerned about the future generations who will live in Russia.
Russians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Russians.
Americans are probably most concerned about the future generations of Americans.
Chinese are probably most concerned about the future generations of Chinese.
Indonesians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Indonesians.
Brazilians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Brazilians.
Not everyone is concerned about the future generations of everybody.
Many/most people are selfish and most concerned with looking after their own.
This is one of the reasons why climate-change/global-warming is unlikely to be "solved".
Eh, fusion power would solve it along with other problems. Various parties are working on it.
Would everybody use fusion power peacefully?
With great power comes great responsibility.
Are all people and countries responsible?
You can look up the details if you want to. But what is your point? Are you seriously doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?
We can go into the weeds on the greenhouse effect and the physical properties of CO2 if you like. But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?
Fusion power doesn't produce materials that can be weaponized, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Anyone with an 6th grade understanding of climate change does, yes.
True, the fossil fuel industry and their propaganda cronies probably don’t— but I’m not interested in narcissistic greed.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Questions like this is why I say you’re an average climate denier, or at least parroting their greatest hits.
Do you really not understand how irrelevant this is? It’s the equivalent of bringing a snowball to the senate floor.
Didn't you read what I said. Here is what I said, "Water vapor, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas.
Does that sound like I am "doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas".
Quoting Mikie
I am talking about the possible effects of water vapor in Eunice Foote's experiments. Did she allow for the amount of water vapor in each of the glass containers?
The amount of global warming from CO2 is affected by the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what causes polar amplification. There is not much water vapor in the atmosphere around the poles because it is cold, so adding CO2 causes a certain amount of global warming. But there is a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere around the equator so adding the same amount of CO2 causes less global warming than at the poles.
Quoting Mikie
You seem to care about Foote's experiment because you used it to show that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest.
To save you from wasting more of your time, and my time, I will tell you what I believe. I believe:
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
- that humans are responsible for most of the increase in CO2 level above about 280 ppm
- that a lot of the increase in CO2 levels is due to the use of fossil fuels
- that the average temperature of the Earth has warmed by around 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times
Does that make me a "denier" ?
You said recently that we should all be scared senseless about climate change. All sorts of bad things flow from deep seated fear, one of them being that it becomes ok to dehumanize other people with labels. It's something I struggle with as well. We could all do with some practice putting fear aside to see what clouds fall away from our vision when we do, so we might see that we're all in the same boat, we all have basically the same desires and needs.
I think one of the main things driving climate change denial is this very thing: fear. Except it's fear of intellectuals and academics. It's fear that these scientists might be right, and so we should be worried.
Fear divided us so we don't even see one another. All we see is monsters. That's not good.
I pointed it out as a historical fact, which anyone can reproduce. You can do it yourself. You can control for anything you want — put more or less water vapor, throw in methane, anything. The particular experiment from the 1800s isn’t important beyond that. Who cares?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Not in the Bjorn Lomborg sense, I suppose.
So you say all this and yet bring up things like Moscow and how cows are a major industry and thus we won’t solve the issue. Why?
Who controls the energy produced by fusion power? Will every country have their own fusion power?
Turning the supply of energy off can certainly cause damage and/or disaster.
You need energy to fight a war, to manufacture weapons, to protect yourself, etc.
You do curiously leave out the link between the CO2 increase and the temperature increase.
Who controls the energy produced by natural gas? Fusion wouldn't be any different from natural gas other than it doesn't cause climate change.
Right…that’s where this is going: it’s something other than CO2. But they can’t say it outright.
Luckily I have a 7th grade understanding of climate change.
Quoting Mikie
Do you care that the people who live in Russia are too cold? I don't think that you care.
So why should the Russians care if you are too hot. Once you are economically or climate damaged the Russians will be able to take over your country. You should learn to speak Russian.
Wouldn't the energy produced by fusion power be much much much greater than the energy produced from natural gas?
Sort of like comparing a sword to a guided missile.
I am not sure whether CO2 is responsible for 100% of the temperature increase. It is probably responsible for the majority of the increase in temperature.
The science is never settled. It must change if new data or observations are incompatible with the existing science. That is why I am not 100% sure.
That kinda depends on a lot of practical engineering questions that we don't yet know the answers to. Technically fusion could produced a ton of power on a small footprint, but it's also possible it ends up similar to fission power in that you need large investments and as a result the returns aren't that high comparatively.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Well they should care because it's not a zero sum game. It's a negative sum game where all the bad consequences (desertification, collapse of ecosystems, unliveable cities) are going to hit us first and only after that will new opportunities slowly open up.
And because having lots of resources helps in weathering the storm, the nations who are on top when shit starts going down will probably be the ones who suffer least.
No.
So much for a good faith discussion about climate change.
As with most climate deniers, the conversation has to devolve into nonsense.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
It is settled. In any meaningful sense whatsoever, it’s settled. It’s as settled as the earth being spherical.
Notice how the “science is never settled” trope gets used selectively. Especially when one knows next to nothing about the topic. Quantum mechanics? Science isn’t settled. Electromagnetism? Science isn’t settled. “Science is never settled!” They become armchair philosophers of science.
Easy, tired slogans.
I’ll simplify it further:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Burning fossil fuels increases CO2.
3. With increased CO2 comes an increase in global temperatures— as seen in the graphs from my post above.
That’s settled.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
No one has ever claimed — certainly not climate scientists — that CO2 is “100% responsible”. This is a ludicrous statement.
You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one.
That's a relief. I was feeling slightly anxious about it.
In 2017 and 2018 the world produced 97,000,000 cars. More than I thought, but most of these were internal combustion powered. By 2025 the total number of electric vehicles on the road will be around 70,000,000 and somewhere between 10 million and 14 million are produced yearly in the world.
The numbers of electric cars are increasing rapidly, but it will be quite a few years before the CO2 burden of gas powered cars is lifted. Then we have to consider how the electricity for electric cars is being produced. Windmills? Solar arrays? Nuclear plants? Hydro? Natural gas? Coal?
Last year 12% of the world's electricity was from solar and wind--better than I thought, but still, a long way to go, especially in the US.
Fortunately I do not have to generate the world's electricity on my bicycle powered generator.
Last year the US government spent $15 billion subsidizing renewable energy, you get a $7500 IRS credit for buying an electric car, and in my state you get a 30% tax credit for using solar power. That kind of thing isn't unusual.
:grin:
Why does talking about the people who are too cold stop this being a good faith discussion?
You call me a denier whenever you disagree with me. You say that my ideas are nonsense whenever you don't want to discuss them. I have refrained from labelling you because I want to have a genuine discussion about climate-change/global-warming. It is you who is stopping us having a good faith discussion.
No, it's you. I gave you a long, detailed post explaining what climate change is. You respond with irrelevancies like "It's cold in Moscow."
If that's truly where your head is at -- to the point where you can't even see how stupid and irrelevant that statement was -- I'm not interested. You're not directing where the conversation goes, and I won't be dragged into a discourse on nonsense.
If you have something to say about climate change, or anything substantive about my post, by all means go for it. If there's some semblance of a point to be made by stating that one region of the world is cold, make it. Otherwise you're wasting my time and everyone else's.
(To those following along, notice how we've already strayed from anything to do with science, where some work actually needs to be done to follow along, into the subjective, flimsy world of "you're mean to me; I'm misunderstood; you call me names; you're not addressing my red herrings")
I am not disputing what climate change is, and I am not disputing that it is happening. I am pointing out the difficulty of "solving" climate change.
The cold temperatures in Russia are not irrelevant to the people who live in Russia. The people who live in Russia would probably like some global warming (nicer temperatures, winters not so harsh, more usable land, longer growing season, etc).
The "problem" of global warming is a difficult one to solve, and probably needs everyone to cooperate.
Why should the Russians cooperate with you?
How cooperative will these countries be? (they all have average summer temperatures below 25 degrees Celsius)
- Greenland
- Faroe Islands
- Norway
- Ireland
- Isle of Man
- Channel Islands
- United Kingdom
- Netherlands
- Denmark
- Finland
- Germany
- Switzerland
- Sweden
- Estonia
- Saint Helena
- Latvia
- Belgium
- Lithuania
- New Zealand
- Mongolia
- Austria
- Russia
- Czech Republic
- Belarus
- Chile
- Canada
These counties might say that they will cooperate, but how hard will they really try?
So the Russians won’t cooperate because it’s cold in Russia. Which is like arguing that the Cook Island don’t care about nuclear proliferation, since they have may survive a nuclear war.
What a low opinion you have of Russian people. In fact, polling shows majorities consider climate change a threat and want to do something about it— despite massive propaganda from this Petrol State.
The Russian government also signed the Paris Accords. The elite pay lip service to climate change but have so far done very little— not a surprise, given their economy.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Many are trying much harder than us, in fact. With the exception of Canada, I think, all of them have lower per capita emissions than we do. So they’re trying harder and contributing less at the same time.
The issue, as I said at the beginning, is political will. Other countries have much stronger action plans on climate change. The dopey US, with one major party full of climate deniers, has only tepidly entered the fight with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which incentivizes EVs, heat pumps, induction stoves, solar panels, etc. — all of which are important technologies. It seems a decent signal to the rest of the world.
There are real roadblocks. Nothing you mentioned, of course, because you don’t know what you’re talking about — but problems like building transmission lines, dealing with permitting and NIMBYism, plugging old oil wells, sealing the leakage of methane from natural gas wells, countering misperceptions about nuclear power, etc., are all real problems. But they’re not impossible. As the climate keeps beating down on more and more people, you’ll start seeing more changes. It’s whether or not there’s enough time— that’s the only question.
To come here with one argument: “throw a solution at me and I’ll make up a reason why it won’t happen,” is really strange. Guess you figured it would make you look interesting in some way. The reality is quite the opposite.
That is exactly the point that I am making. You think that these roadblocks will be overcome. I believe that these roadblocks won't be overcome.
We will have to wait and see which of us is correct.
Right, you’re here to say “it can’t happen.” Just like those who said we’d never solve the ozone hole problem. Just a wave of the hand. Don’t have to learn anything or know anything, just point and say “way too hard— won’t happen.” Yeah, I suppose if everyone had attitudes like yours, it’d be a guarantee that nothing will happen.
Fortunately, even those who are pessimistic stress the importance of action. I value their onions; I don’t value yours. And for a simple reason: you haven’t shown even an 8th grade understanding of climate science.
Anyway— yes, time will tell.
And don't forget the researchers in the Antarctic! Imagine how much more pleasant life would be for them if the Earth warmed up 20 degrees or so.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
As I said in an earlier post, I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected actual temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth.
After quality control I ended up with data for just over 24,000 locations on the earth. For each location the data includes:
- yearly and monthly average temperatures
- yearly and monthly average high temperatures
- yearly and monthly average low temperatures
I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average low temperature of the coldest month, and the average high temperature of the hottest month, for each country.
I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country.
The following graph shows the data for each country. Each country is plotted as a rectangle. The height of the rectangle for a country goes from the average low temperature of the coldest month to the average high temperature of the hottest month. The width of the rectangle for a country shows the population of that country. The countries have been sorted by the average high temperature of the hottest month. Some of the countries with large populations have been labelled.
Also shown on the graph are:
- the average temperature of the land (averaged by area for 216 counties), This is the red line and equals 15.6 degrees Celsius
- the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the earth).This is the blue line and equals 19.7 degrees Celsius
Note that the average human lives at a warmer temperature than the average land temperature.
Here is an example of using the graph. Find the yellow label which says “China” and locate the large rectangle above the label. That large rectangle represents China.
The average low temperature of China’s coldest month is about -2.0 degrees Celsius.
The average high temperature of China’s hottest month is about +30.3 degrees Celsius.
The grey line about half way up the rectangle is China’s yearly average temperature. For China, this is about +15.0 degrees Celsius.
The population of China is about 1,420,062,022 (the width of the rectangle).
There is a lot of information contained in the graph. One interesting thing that can be done is to choose a country and add some amount of global warming to the average high temperature of the hottest month. Then look to see which countries already have (without any global warming) an average high temperature of the hottest month higher than the first country chosen with global warming.
For example, Russia with +7.5 degrees Celsius of global warming will still have an average high temperature of the hottest month lower than America's with no global warming.
So you’ve gathered data and put it into a graph — which thousands of climate scientists have also done — and then conclude with, once again, talking about how Russia is cold.
And this is supposed to disprove my quote statements above— which I stand by wholeheartedly. Hilarious.
It’s cold some places, it’s hotter other places. No kidding. Do you have a point to make or are you now just talking into the ether?
And Russia isn't alone. Most countries have been making promises that they apparently have no intention of fulfilling. The issue is internationally recognized at least since the Kyoto protocol of 1992. And emissions only have gone up since, eventhough the whole idea was to limit and reduce emissions... This is more than 30 years ago, why would things suddenly change now?
And if one looks deeper into the energy-economics of it, I think it quickly becomes apparent why we have failed. Fossil fuels are the economy. That's the dirtly little secret nobody wants to acknowledge... because acknowledging that ultimately also means acknowledging that we probably can't have a world with 8 billion people having a reasonably affluent modern life-style.
This is where all the cognitive dissonance comes from, from all sides of the political aisle... at some point the issue of climate change (and the ecological crisis more generally) clashes with some aspect of the ideology one holds dear. And then we tend to deny the things that clash with the ideology, because it's harder to change deep seated valuations and ideologies than denying reality. Conservatives will often flat-out deny climate change or deny the consequences, liberals and socialists will deny that we can't just change our economy by swapping out fossil fuels and keep our affluent life-styles at the same time... and greens will deny that we can't return to some prestine garden of eden type earth.
That's the ticket. Its so simple.. We can all be nice to each other and all war will end ... and everyone will be happy. Then we can all grow flowers, and everyone will play with puppies, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows forever
I don't think that's it. I think people want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. They also want to combat climate change, but they really want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. It's ideology clashing with consumerism.
Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well.
I think we're going to need a world government with some teeth because there are existential issues that keep popping up: climate change, Ai, genetic engineering, nanotechnology.
But saying they want to combat climate change, isn't really true insofar as combatting climate change precisely entails less of these things they really want. That's a bit like saying, I want to be a top athlete, but I don't want to train for it... then you don't really want to be a top athlete.
I guess part of the problem is that contempory poltical ideologies give them justification for believing that they can have both consumerism as they have it now, and combat climate change at the same time. Maybe that's precisely part of their appeal, in democracies especially where the majority of votes determine who's in power.
Yeah, but then a global goverment comes with its own set of problems, a heavy bureaucracy would be one of them. And a lot of power attracts all types of nasty figures invariably, so i'm not sure that would do it. But maybe some type of seperate organisation that gets funding and power specifically to tackle this problem could help... I don't know exactly.
It's not only about the raw energy, but also in what form it comes, how easy is it to use etc. Nuclear fission for instance probably can compete with fossil fuels on Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), but the problem is you can't turn it on or off at will like fossil fuel plants... it's mostly a base load, and what we need is peak power.
And maybe more importantly, we need fossil fuels not only for energy, but for all the derivatives, like plastics, chemicals, fertilizer etc etc etc... For instance we do not know how to make fertilizer in an economically viable way without natural gas. This means we need to rethink and remake our entire agriculture if we want to produce enough food without cheap fertilizer.
The same is true for most of the economic sectors. We literally need to rethink most of them from scratch, because they organically grew out of cheap and easy to use energy and the readily available waste and byproducts of refining oil and gas. It's hard to overstate the enormity of this exercise, because years of iterative innovation on these existing processes and enormous amounts of capital investements need to be throw away to basically start over.
But corruption will be there no matter what we do. Some people are going to look for ways to exploit what exists to the detriment of others. That's just human. The thing about corruption, though, is that it depends on its host. It doesn't want to destroy the social order. It will act to protect it if need be, because it needs it.
That said, we'd probably need a new global religion as well, to glue the global order together. I think we're probably about due for one.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
And I don't think this is the kind of change that we can engineer for ourselves. As you say, it's too deeply rooted in what and who we are. We can't preserve ourselves and our way of life. All we can do is bless future generations in their quest for life.
So it really comes down to this: how much faith do you have in your own species? People who hate humanity will just be bitter no matter what. People who love it and believe in human genius, will see that there's a way.
Bananas. People keep slipping on bananas. That too. :groan:
Banana slippage is an existential threat?
There's a third option. I think these problems precisly come from being to smart, from being to succesfull. We managed to outsmart the ecology we came from, outgrew and degraded it in the process... and may ultimately fail because we do still depend on it. Icarus was smart too...
Well, it could be.
Seems like Kurt Vonnegut mentioned that solution.
Your response shows that you don't really know much about climate-change/global-warming.
Do you know what the difference is between a temperature anomaly and an actual temperature?
Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies. They hardly ever tell the public about actual temperatures (unless it is a high actual temperature).
Why? Because global-warming looks a lot less scary when you look at actual temperatures.
To calculate temperature anomalies you need to use actual temperatures. So climate scientists already have the actual temperatures available with no extra work. But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public.
That is why I have put a lot of work into finding the actual temperatures for each country/location.
The following map shows the actual temperatures for the Earth in January. This is the Northern Hemisphere Winter and the Southern Hemisphere Summer.
The resolution of this map is 2 degrees latitude by 2 degrees longitude. The same resolution as the GISTEMP temperature anomaly data.
Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold.
Yes, it's cold in winter. :roll:
A very cold goose who wants some global-warming :sad:
There are a lot of geese who want the same as me.
"Sea ice around Antarctica reached its lowest extent on February 21, 2023, at 1.79 million square kilometers (691,000 square miles). That’s 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles) below the previous record-low reached on February 25, 2022—a difference that equates to an area about the size of New York state."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151093/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-another-record-low
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151093/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-another-record-low
Yes, the global sea ice decline is worrisome, don't you think?
Yet, a few sentences later:
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Care to give any examples whatsoever?
Anyway, this is yet another denialist claim— i.e., the climate scientists aren’t being truthful with the public or giving the whole story. Usually it’s confined to the liberal media, not scientists themselves— but you take it a step further.
Anyway, you’re wrong. What you’re referring to is talk about average global temperatures. Anomalies are certainly seen on this level, yes. Which is why year after year breaks records (of measurements that began in the late 19th century).
You’re just confused about “anomalies”, apparently thinking scientists only report on the specific areas that are breaking heat records (which also explains your odd obsession with the “coldness” of Russia). This doesn’t even make sense, though, when you contrast it with “actual” temperatures: even high temperatures that break records (“anomalies”) are “actual”: they’re as real as any other temperature.
The real contrast to “actual” would be “speculative” in some sense, or perhaps somehow based on modeling (opposed to “real” thermometer readings).
So nothing you’re saying makes sense.
Here are the facts:
- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution
As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Again— this is a climate denial argument. Somehow climate change isn’t “scary” (and perhaps not even real) because scientists are withholding information or are deliberately scaring the public.
What examples do you have? What could you possibly mean by “actual” temperatures? The temperature today in New Hampshire was a high of 79 and a low of 54. Which one is “actual”? If the average temperature today was 65, is that not real?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Yes…and?? What is your point? And are these averages for January? Are averages “actual” temperatures? If so, then that’s exactly what climate scientists talk about — which you claimed they don’t. They report on average global temperatures for each year — which is what you hear about in the news.
Quoting Banno
I’m glad I’m not the only one who recognizes how ridiculous this is.
Best to laugh and walk away.
You’re more restrained than I am. This is a particularly important issue for me — which also makes it difficult to discuss with people who so arrogantly display their ignorance.
You and Mikie usually respond to my posts with insults rather than intelligent discussion.
It is almost like I was questioning your religion.
We geese are intelligent enough to migrate when things get too cold. We fly to locations that are nice and warm. Because warmth is much much better than cold.
If humans cause a bit more global-warming then we geese won't have to waste all of that energy flying. We can stay in a warm paradise without needing to migrate.
If geese drove cars then they would fill them with goose-oline. :rofl:
What does an Egyptian goose say?
I'm in denial !!! :rofl:
In case you don't get it, "denial" = "de Nile" = "the Nile (river)"
If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming.
Try looking at this webpage from NASA GISTEMP. You only need to read the first bit, under the heading "The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)".
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
Agree to Disagree pointed out that addressing climate change may not be possible due to a lack of global unity. As others already pointed out, this is true.
Did you have something to add other than insults?
And why does the spellchecker not recognize "naive"?
He's said repeatedly that he believes climate change is underway and it's the result of human activity. He just doesn't believe it's possible to address it.
They’re all based on averages. Even anomalies, which you seem to barely understand, are based on averages. You cited an average yourself — for the month of January.
The global average temperature in the 20th century was 57 degrees F. There’s nothing “not actual” about that.
Also, having a huge collection of data points around the world is pointless. You take averages— long term and short term averages— to understand changes (whether positive or negative, which are deviations [“anomalies”] from a certain period’s average). Otherwise it’s simply pointless to look at a globe and say “hey, look at all the blue spots in January!”
Try learning something about climate change. Start by reading the link you cite. It doesn’t seem like you have.
- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution
As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).
No, that is not my position.
I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. I am in favor of slowly transitioning away from fossil fuels. This needs to be done at a speed which does not cause large problems.
There are many other important problems that also need our attention (e.g. pollution - not the CO2 kind).
Many people seem to be paranoid about the use of crude oil. Crude oil is very useful for a lot of reasons.
Before I give you this list I need to make it clear that I don't/never have worked for any oil company. I have never received any payment or gift/perk from any oil company. I have been a computer programmer for the last 40 years working mostly in the banking industry, but also 13 years in the battery monitoring industry.
Crude oil is very useful for a number of reasons:
- we don't need to chop down an enormous number of trees to use as fuel. Trees are quite slow to regenerate. We want to have lots of trees to hug :grin:
- we don't need to kill whales for oil. Spermaceti from the head cavities of sperm whales and whale oil which is obtained from the blubber of whales :sad:
- 3 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of asphalt to pave roads and parking lots.
- 1 percent of each barrel of crude oil goes into the manufacturing of lubricants: the greases and fluids that help keep our world running smoothly.
- 15 percent each barrel of crude oil goes into the production of thousands of different items, ranging from makeup to medicine.
These "thousands of different items" include (in no particular order):
- wrapping paper
- mannequins
- ball pits (that children play in)
- artificial leather (don't need to kill so many animals?)
- hard hats
- lotions
- acrylic paint
- hairspray
- dog collars
- fishing rods
- hair color
- lipstick
- manufacture of money
- artificial turf
- kayaks
- sunglasses
- pencils
- drums
- high heels
- styrofoam
- CDs
- porta-potties
- artificial heart valves
- hammocks
- elastic underwear
- balm
- bicycles
- mattresses
- light bulbs
- beer widgets
- microphones
- basketballs
- electric guitars
- photographic film
- cables
- champagne flutes
- christmas lights
- footballs
- ASPIRIN
- football helmets
- toothbrushes
- candles
- baseballs
- dog toys
- etc
- etc
- etc
Of course I have left off the list one of the most important items produced from crude oil
- E-Juice for vaping
How many young people do you know who are willing to give up vaping to reduce global-warming?
I totally agree. And don't forget Africa and most of South America.
How do you think that I knew about the link that I cited? Do you think that I just guessed it randomly or had I read the paragraph that I suggested you read.
Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly. This represents just one temperature (the pre-industrial temperature plus the temperature anomaly).
But humans don't live at just a single temperature, they live at a range of temperatures. I have calculated the range of temperatures for each country. From the countries "average high temperature for the hottest month" to the countries "average low temperature for the coldest month".
Why haven't climate scientists done this? Is it because the size of global warming is small compared to the size of seasonal temperature variation?
Also don't forget about the speed that global warming is happening at. Global warming is currently about 1 to 2 degrees Celsius per century. This is equivalent to 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year.
Many locations on Earth have a 20 to 30 degree Celsius temperature difference between winter and summer. Let’s call it a 25 degree Celsius average. These places warm by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months. This is equivalent to 50 degrees Celsius per year.
50 degrees Celsius per year compared to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year is warming at a rate 2,500 times faster than global warming. All humans, plants, and animals, have evolved to tolerate this speed of warming.
Below is a map showing the temperature difference between winter and summer for locations on earth. Some places has a temperature difference of over 70 degrees Celsius between winter and summer. Compare this to +1.0 degree Celsius of global-warming. Global warming is slow and small compared to seasonal warming.
This is merely a convention, so that they talk about the same thing... it is not a mistake, but a choice, one could maybe argue about, sure.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
We don't need to calculated average high or low temperatures, because we know them... because we keep track of them? This seems like a weird thing to focus on.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about the difference between local extremes, while climate scientists talk about the difference in global average temperatures.
A rise in global average temperature of say 1 degree, also means a likelyhood of extremes that are many times that 1 degree. This is really important to realise... record temperatures are continually being broken by a lot more than the global average temperature rise.
And also important to realise is that we do not experiences averages, but we do experience the extremes... a couple of days of extreme temperature is enough to kill a lot of people, animals, and plants and crops. Averages are just there to track the evolution of warming.
And what's up with doubling 25 to 50? You got to be kidding me.
Plants and animals have evolved to tolerate seasonal change in temperature, but not to tolerate higher or lower extremes. This is not open to discussion, or something to be settled scientifically, but well know fact at this point.
I am not sure which aspect you are referring to. Are you talking about:
- the use of the temperature in pre-industrial times as the baseline, or
- using a single temperature (or single temperature anomaly) rather than a range of temperatures
Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth?
Don’t tell me. Let me guess. It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures. Having a temperature anomaly of zero makes any temperature look “normal”.
If the earth was abnormally cold in the Little Ice Age (pre-industrial times) then the temperature recovering to normal (i.e. global warming) is probably a good thing.
We don't directly measure the average high temperature or the average low temperature off some device. It is an "average" which requires a statistical calculation.
We directly measure the temperature a certain number of times a day and work out (calculate) what the high temperature is for the day, and what the low temperature is for the day.
There are Weather websites that you can look at to see these values. But how many locations does the average person look at. I looked at data for 36,000 locations so that I got a global picture.
I am comparing temperature changes (and rates of temperature change) with temperature changes (and rates of temperature change). Your body can't tell the difference between +1 degree Celsius from global warming and +1 degree Celsius from seasonal warming.
Most people don't live at the global average temperature. People live at locations which have their own local temperature range. Alarmists want you to believe that any temperature increase anywhere is bad. But there are many places in the world where a small temperature increase would be good.
Rate of temperature change = change in temperature / time
If we want the result in degrees Celsius per year, and the temperature changes by 25 degrees Celsius in 6 months, then the rate of temperature change = 25 / 0.5 = 50 degrees Celsius per year. Note that this rate of change only applies to the 6 months we are looking at, not the whole year.
Consider Canada. Canada is a very cold country. Nearly all of the major cities are near the Canadian/American border, to be as warm as possible. Even being near the border it is cold.
Do you think that Canadians are worried if they get a new extreme temperature which is a little bit higher than the previous extreme temperature?
Not all extremes are bad.
Both.
It's a convention, like I said, and makes some sense considering the industrial revolution was the time we started burning fossil fuels, and therefore emitting CO2, which was indentified as a greenhouse gas. But ultimately it doesn't matter what point you take as a starting point, what matters is absolute temperatures and rate of change.
It would be a good thing if all we did was return to pre-little ice-age temperatures, but that's not the case, we going to temperatures not experienced for 100.000 of years, and the rate of change is probably unprecedented in all of earths history.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
No, it's about 1) extreme temperatures on the one hand, and 2) how fast those are rising on the other.
1) No matter how slow you raise temperatures, we couldn't handle boiling water. There's a maximum of temperature combined with humidity we can handle.
2) Animals and plants have evolved strategies to deal with seasonal changes in temperature, they shed their leaves, they hibernate, they go dormant etc etc... They don't have strategies for dealing with extreme temperatures on top of seasonal changes.
There are more people living in places where increase in temperature is bad, India, Africa etc... Those people will need to move if warming continues because of wet-bulb temperatures, rise in sea-level, failing agriculture... Where do you think they will go?
But more importantly you're missing what it entails for ecosystems. Animals and certainly plants can't adapt to this rapid change in extremes because evolution is a much slower process than the current rate of change caused by climate change. This means a lot of earths ecosystem is or will die off.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I don't think they were that happy with the 2021 heat wave that killed more than 800 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_North_America_heat_wave
And it's not just a little bit higher... changes in extremes are bigger than the average global rise in temperature, and changes in nothern hemisphere averages are also higher than rises in global average.
Also billions of climate refugees will cause problems regardless of whether some rise in temperature isn't that bad locally in some places.
Plants don't have legs to migrate to northern latitudes, or heating/clothes to adapt to the worst of extreme temperatures. And animals depend on plants... Even in those places that a couple of degrees wouldn't be that bad for humans, it would be bad for the ecosystems that evolved in temperatures that are changing rapidly.
Pole and glacial ice will melt eventually with a couple of degrees, which means global sea rise everywhere regardless of local temperature. Even if we manage to re-locate this will costs enormous amounts of money because a lot of big cities are built near the coast.
I think you don't realise what a couple of degrees of global warming really means.
Wow.
Yeah, you’re right— I guess you’re really on to something! Keep up the great work.
I’m glad to see the fully-fledged denier in you coming out. My senses still serve me well I see.
Even after all the politician-like statements about how you “of course” don’t deny climate change. The climate ALWAYS changes blah blah blah.
First nothing can be done because it’s cold in Russia.
Then scientists around the world are misleading people by focusing on anomalies and averages, rather than the “actual” temperatures that you alone have put nicely in a graph.
Then “what about the little ice age?”
Now: maybe a warming planet is a good thing?
So very predictable. Anyone who can’t see this is a complete imbecile.
“Alarmists.” :lol:
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
We haven’t gone over 300 ppm in 800 THOUSAND years. Hence the rapid rise in temperatures.
If we really don’t yet understand why that’s a bad thing— for everyone — then fortunately there’s Google.
There are no "climate deniers" on this page. It's a poor form of bullying to intentionally misinterpret someone's posts. Let's not do that.
Like with most climate deniers, this will slowly become more apparent.
But I appreciate you taking over the annoying job of explaining things. I think I’m tapped out.
Quoting unenlightened
... is a good place to start, wouldn't you say?
Paul Krugman (I gifted a free article.)
Meanwhile, there's been a flurry of articles the last few days about the economic and fiscal reality of actually transitioning to green energy, especially in the UK, where transitioning the power grid is going to cost huge money. See Europe blinks in its commitment to a great green transition (WaPo, gift article).
Yes, it is depressing when people are killed. But which kills more, heat or cold?
[quote=ScienceDaily;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm]Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings, published in The Lancet, also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.[/quote]
[quote=TheGuardian;https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/21/moderately-cold-weather-more-deadly-than-heatwaves-or-extreme-cold]Heatwaves are not as deadly as has been assumed, according to research that suggests prolonged exposure to moderately cold temperatures kills more people than scorching or freezing spells.
The study of deaths in 13 countries, published in the Lancet medical journal, found that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, and that premature deaths are more often caused by prolonged spells of moderate cold than short extreme bursts.[/quote]
[quote=TheBreakThrough;https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change]It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures.
Deaths associated with non-optimal temperatures have been decreasing over time as it has gotten warmer partly due to a reduction in cold deaths. It has been estimated that warming from 2000 to 2019 has resulted in a net decline in excess deaths globally (a larger decrease in cold deaths than an increase in heat deaths).
Even isolating deaths associated with heat, in most locations, deaths have been decreasing over time despite warming.[/quote]
Strangely enough, human intervention in the climate might initiate a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor. That would send the climate into a deep cold spell. Weird, huh?
No sign of that actually occuring, though. It's a theoretical possibility, but the evidence doesn't support it.
So warming causes cooling.
I think that the key word in your comment is "might".
For the last 40 years we have been told that the world will end in 10 years. Is it the same people who are scaremongering about a shutdown of the global oceanic heat conveyor?
Are you familiar with the story about the boy who cried wolf?
It's happened before, yes.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Nobody has a crystal ball unfortunately.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I'm not scaremongering. I don't want you to be afraid. You have a right to think whatever you want. Don't we all?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Sure. Nobody is crying wolf, though. The oceanic heat conveyor is slowing down now because of ice entering the north Atlantic. Does that prospect frighten you?
It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. So yes, it's a distinct possibility. The evidence supports it.
I agree that global warming will cause some problems. But it will also bring some benefits.
In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt.
All perfectly respectable viewpoints.
Let's hope.
What? It would be beyond catastrophic if it happened again.
I am more worried about population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, and cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics.
Well, you seemed confident! And one would have thought a global cooling event could at least serve as a counterweight to catastropic heating.
Okey dokey.
Yea, no.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Quoting Agree to Disagree
And the climate denial just keeps on coming.
Quoting Quixodian
Let’s hope.
— from the “alarmists” and “scaremongers” of NASA, who definitely don’t know as much as the climate deniers (oops, I mean “skeptics”) on this thread.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
This is not like some sort of balancing act though as if you win some and lose some.
I agree it's going to be hard to stop global warming, and I agree there are some real tradeoffs (not necessarily between heating and cooling, but between climate change and the economy which is based on fossil fuels), but It's not an all or nothing deal, there are degrees of warming we could mitigate. At the very least we should try to avoid a good amount of the additional warming, as much as possible given other factors that we should take into account (like the economy).
And as I said it's not only about the problems and benefits of heat vs cold, it's also the rapid change of climate that causes problems in itself... The idea of an impoverished biosphere for the next couple of millennia at least is enough to give me pause.
Quoting Mikie
Please state clearly which you think kills more, heat or cold?
I provided links to where I got the information from. Can you provide links to dispute the claim that cold kills more than heat?
Or could it be that you are in denial of the facts?
Is it a numbers game? A scorecard? Tens of thousands have died in European heatwaves the last few years. Find me a story on ‘increased deaths through global cooling’.
Mikie, are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.
How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?
Yeah! I joined a forum, and there’s an anonymous poster who says they might be wrong. So they’re wrong! It’s obvious, really.
As far as I’m concerned, you’re trolling, and you can take that as a warning.
Here's another example of why it's not only about heat vs cold :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/08/storm-hans-causes-havoc-in-norway-with-heaviest-rain-in-25-years-forecast
More heat causes the atmosphere to take up more humidity, which in turn causes more extreme weather like storms and floods. We used to have very few of these in Europe.
Surely it is a balancing act.
There are some countries which are better off because of the small amount of global warming that we have had. They have a nicer climate, less people die from cold, they have lower heating cost, they have a longer growing season, etc
You seem to want them and other countries to miss out on the benefits of present and any future warming. What gives you the right to deny them the benefits that they have gained.
So how do we know that they are not wrong again?
Just because I am an anonymous poster doesn't make me wrong.
Hold on a minute. Aren't you an anonymous poster?
No, I'm a moderator, and well known to all the staff and posters here. I notice that all of your comments, bar one, on this forum, have been on this topic, and that all of them are essentially calling climate change science into question. I will discuss this with the other moderators.
Are the people who die from cold less important than the people who die from heat? Did you read the information that I provided links to?
Quoting ScienceDaily
Quoting ScienceDaily
Quoting TheGuardian
Quoting TheBreakThrough
Quoting TheBreakThrough
Is it a crime to be very interested in a particular topic?
All of my posts are civil, I provide evidence, and I don't call people names.
Isn't this forum meant to be about the free exchange of ideas?
I have said that I believe that climate-change/global warming is happening. I am discussing the details. Challenging peoples beliefs in a civil way makes for a robust discussion.
Thank you for considering my point. For me there are no "facts" that are beyond dispute.
This is a spurious comparison, regardless of the statistics. It's a version of whataboutism - 'what about the cold?'
Quoting Agree to Disagree
'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
If you look at the 2022 IPCC impact report, you'll see that they examine adaptation prospects. In other words, even the IPCC has begun to be skeptical about avoiding climate change. It may be that we win by adapting.
Says who? And with what authority? It has always been the case and will always be the case that one does not have the right to think what one likes. If one thinks that all Jews should be exterminated, or that children need introducing to sex by pedophiles. one ought to be locked up, and very likely will be sooner or later.
I have no doubt peddling lies about the climate will be similarly regarded once the effects of climate change begin to bite and the megadeath toll begins to mount.
Heat.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Yep:
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold
It goes on from there. But it does involve reading, and a bit of nuance when assessing studies— so feel free to ignore it so you can go on happily with your denial.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I’m sure they are. Other scientists will figure out where and how. But I’m not delusional enough to believe I know where they’re wrong or why.
They underestimated the speed of change. No one claimed to have the level of certainty that they do that climate change is happening, and rapidly.
This means climate change is actually worse than expected, btw. You know, that phenomenon that “maybe” is a good thing, as you absurdly and ignorantly suggested?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Next time someone’s house is on fire, we should treat it as a balancing act. Clearly there’s benefits. Who are we to deprive them of heat in winter? The smoldering ashes are a great source of warmth. Maybe they can re-sell the charcoal.
?
Quoting unenlightened
I probably should have said, "I respect your right to think whatever you like about climate change." Because I do.
Again, he hasn't denied climate change. He just doesn't believe there's anything we can do about it, and he believes there will be some benefits from it, which is true.
Let's be civil, ok?
Creationists say the same thing about evolution— especially when it’s shown that scientists were off about some hypothesis— like ideas about what killed the dinosaurs.
Yours is a god-of-the-gaps approach to climate denial, even going so far as using the fact that it’s WORSE than some scientists anticipated as proof that they may be wrong about all of it. Truly pathetic. But also average.
That's not what he said. I'd like you to stop bullying by intentionally misinterpreting. Let's be civil.
It is civility and civilisation that are under threat. Civility has to stop at the point where the conditions for its existence are threatened, just as 'freedom' does. Your moral scruples will not save us here, but are themselves out of order. It's a climate emergency, not a climate chat show. Let us resist catastrophe, by any means necessary, even including being a bit rude occasionally.
There is never a time when it's ok to be immoral. Never.
The problem for me, is that I don't think I'm smart enough to know when I'm deluding myself. I'm American. I have a heritage of rationalizing crimes because it was supposed to be necessary for survival.
I learned that it's better to die than to believe there are times when evil is ok. I think there are bullies in this thread who are unjustly attacking a person. I should speak up.
Yes indeed. But, again, pretty standard (ie, average) for a climate denier.
I posted about this a while back under “selective skepticism.” It’s motivated by something else— in this case, propaganda-driven denial; but not always. Sometimes by money or the feeling of superiority/specialness.
In any case, it usually presents as “ah shucks I’m just asking questions and showing a healthy bit of skepticism” and then fairly quickly reduces to “scientists were wrong about the earth being flat” and, eventually, “there are no facts.”
Yes, maybe when I walk out the door I’ll fly away. Maybe. Who knows? Prove it can’t happen— and cite your source!
He hasn't denied climate change. I'd like you to stop bullying by intentionally misinterpreting him.
But it doesn't stop you telling us how to behave. So it looks like your claim above is one of your delusions.
I could be deluded, yes. But if I am, I didn't rationalize that it's ok to hurt people.
You appear to be rationalising that your interventions here will not hurt anyone, but you may be very wrong. If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. A high price for us to pay for your delusion of innocence.
By this scenario, intentionally misinterpreting and belittling people is the way we achieve consensus. Do you really believe that?
So how about just walk away? Why mistreat the person? Walking away has the benefit of leaving the door open, should he change his mind and decide you're right. Attacking him just leaves a bad taste in the mouths of all who witness your abuse.
Quoting unenlightened
In this case, the person we're talking about has not given the impression that climate change won't cost lives. He hasn't denied climate change.
Can we let that sink in for a moment? He hasn't denied climate change. If you think he has, then you've bought into the words of a bully.
What he has done is express the belief that there isn't any way to stop it. A lot of people feel that way, and they have good reasons for it. If you feel that skepticism about avoidance is unworthy of consideration, then you'll have to exclude the IPCC from your sensible conversations, because they have now shifted to looking at the prospects for adaptation in the various global zones they consider. I linked the link earlier.
I belong to a science and technology group where the consensus has long been that there's no way to avoid climate change. If you came into that community demanding that people reconsider this, they wouldn't attack you as a naive fool. They would just smile. But if one of them did decide to attack you, I would stand up for you and demand that they treat you civilly.
That's all I'm doing here.
You walk away if you want to, but I haven't entirely given up on you. And I haven't given up on the topic either. A lot of people are going to die, more than a few already have died, and a lot of environments are going to die, but we can go on making things worse, or we can start trying to make things less awful. I'm for doing the latter, even if it means being a little bit harsh with people who pretend to a knowledge they do not have.
You understand that "climate denial" is an umbrella term, that should not be taken absolutely literally? From 'its not happening', to 'it's not that bad', to 'there's nothing to be done', to 'it's always happened', to 'it might get colder soon', to 'seasonal change is greater than climate warming' . I mean, really, what is that last one for shit posting? You want us to discuss why that is problematic?
I hadn't heard that term before. You're saying it includes people who accept climate change, but don't think there's anything we can do about it? And anyone who expresses that view is shitposting?
This conversation has made me sad. I'll probably not respond further.
Spell out that position more clearly because stated like this it's patently absurd.
That explains a lot.
They think the challenges to avoiding climate change are insurmountable. They think we'll have to adapt.
I am a strong believer in evolution. I have used that belief to try and understand how dangerous global warming is.
Humans evolved in Africa, near Kenya. So humans should be able to tolerate temperatures which are close to the temperatures found in Kenya.
- the average daily low for Kenya's coldest month is 14.7 degrees Celsius
- the average yearly temperature for Kenya is 21.5 degrees Celsius
- the average daily high for Kenya's hottest month is 29.1 degrees Celsius
So Kenya's temperature range is 14.4 degrees Celsius, and the temperature normally varies from warm to quite hot.
Humans evolved in a hot country. Many humans then migrated to other counties, some of them being considerably colder than Kenya.
This is why humans can tolerate heat better than they can tolerate cold.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I’m not going to simply refute stupid claim after stupid claim. You’re changing the subject — again. If you want to continue, respond to what’s been said so far and stay on topic. Otherwise, I’m not interested in your particular brand of climate denial.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Yeah, that’s it — everyone is just paranoid.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Conspiracy.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
(Common climate denial accusation— “the church of climate change,” etc)
Quoting Agree to Disagree
(Common denialist accusation.)
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Quoting Agree to Disagree
(Never talks about why other than it’s cold in sone places and that India and China have a lot of cows so, you know, “good luck with that”. Solid argument.)
Quoting Agree to Disagree
(Wrong— It’s closer to 4mm a year.)
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Wrong — poll after poll show people want their governments to do something.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Wrong— another myth in defense of industry (no surprise there).
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I did — and then no further response about that; subject changed to how because we all evolved from Africa, we can handle the coming heat. :roll:
-----
All the makings of a varsity athlete.
Quoting Mikie
This was just worth repeating.
Here's your answer:–
Quoting frank
Some of us have this magical ability to change our minds when we find out we were wrong, and others just get angry. If only they could realise that it was them being wrong that made them lose...
Videos denying climate science approved by Florida as state curriculum
[sup]— Oliver Milman · The Guardian · Aug 10, 2023[/sup]
PragerU...? Haven't watched this particular propaganda of theirs; might just be a waste of time.
Somebody keeps making these kinds of news blurbs about Florida and then they're picked up. I've fallen for it too. In this case, if you look closer, you'll see that the PragerU videos that are allowed for young children are the ones that explain how the US government works. Their stuff does have a conservative bias, but nothing unholy.
The news in this case is that someone was concerned that this opens the door to the use of climate change denial stuff (not climate-denial, there's no such thing. :lol: )
I haven't argued that climate change can't be addressed. I was simply explaining that this view is common, and that there are discussion groups where the general consensus is that we won't be able to avoid the worse case scenario.
I have no interest in convincing you of anything. You're free to believe what you like as far as I'm concerned. :up:
Well, the top paragraph of the Guardian story @jorndoe posted:
Story goes on to note:
I don't know if 'unholy' is the right word - maybe it's not strong enough. 'Fallacious right-wing propaganda' might be more suitable.
The Conservative identification of the science of climate change with left-wing politics is extremely unfortunate, as it is, of course, complete bullshit. The most activist early climate-change politician was none other than Margeret Thatcher, who said in a speech to the United Nations in 1989
[quote=Margeret Thatcher; https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107817]We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.
At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.
Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones.[/quote]
Left-wing stuff, eh? Thatcher was, before entering politics, a scientist, and as a consequence of her advocacy, the UK is ahead of the US on climate issue, as it has more bi-partisan support there (which is not to say that they don't have a very hard road ahead to meet their targets or that the fossil fuel industry does not still have a lot of influence there.)
Yes, but if it happens it is global warming causing local cooling. Global warming may also cause more extreme weather; colder minimums and warmer maximums, but overall it is still global warming.
(I haven't read the subsequent thread, so if someone has already pointed this out...take it as emphasis).
@Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed. There isn't much that can be done for or with the invincibly misinformed, the invincibly ignorant, the invincibly stupid, etc. Every member of TPF, one by one, can beat him or her over the head with the facts, but the invincible are... invincible. So, move on; leave the close-minded sons of bitches alone.
@Agree to Disagree may want to plug up the conduit of consensus. I don't know why. However, some resistance can actually help solidify consensus.
We aren't in a very good position to change the policies of the extensive fossil fuel industry, it's outright owners or stockholders, invested banks, mutual funds, and private equity companies. Were TPF to be a $500B fund with lots of fossil fuel stocks, our consensus might disturb Exxon Mobil.
It isn't that we are completely powerless (and I definitely don't want to discuss how close to powerlessness we might be) so there are some things we can do on a personal level: recycling, eating a vegetarian diet, buying less, traveling less, consuming less--but BEING more. These are all pieces of a civic spiritual discipline.
We can try to influence those around us to take climate change (global heating) seriously. We can agitate, irritate, and aggravate do-nothing officials. We can vote when and if a candidate is available who might make a difference. We can engage in any suitable anti-corporate protest that might be available.
It's at least disgusting when some nattering nabob of negativity very reliably pipes up with "That won't do any good!" "It won't work!" "If one march doesn't lead to victory, why bother?" Etc.
I think it's important to point out things that won't work because resources, time and political capital is limited. If we bet on and invest in things that won't work, that means there is less for things that do work.
To give an example. Germany invested a lot in renewables, more than most other countries, decommissioned its nuclear plants, and counted on natural gas power plants as a back up for unavoidable down periods that are the consequence of relying on renewables. Then when natural gas prices spiked just before Putin invaded Ukraine (which was probably the reason Putin thought it a good idea to invade at the time) Germany found itself in a lot of trouble... and actually had to revert back to coal power plants, which are many times worse than other fossil fuels for climate change.
A lot of ideas are just bad ideas. Most ideas are in fact bad, because the world is a complex place, and ideas are easy to come by. The whole green energy transition as conceived is a bad idea, because of it's reliance on renewables prodominately. I don't want to defend Agree to disagree, his arguments are just poor and he seems to be disingenious, but I think there's also a real danger of being pressured into going along with proposed solutions that will not work, just because you are thereby percieved to be opposing the ones that want to solve the climate crisis, i.e. "the good guys".
When it comes to massive efforts, what we're really good at is war. Society is reorganized top to bottom to find the way to survive. The population gives over easily to dictatorship, almost instinctively. Now it doesn't matter if people poo poo the effort. We've become a giant, intelligent, highly aggressive organism willing to sacrifice to achieve goals.
I think it would be in conditions like that that we would reorganize ourselves with a different energy source.
What could change it, is some type of crisis, like we saw at the start of WOII, when the US mobilised in a very short time. That's why I think it's very difficult to see a clear path to a solution at this particular moment.... but you know, things can change quickly.
I agree. Also, philosophically speaking it's a case of Kierkegaard's sickness until death, which is that we can't carry certain aspects of who we are into this new world we imagine. We have to die to change, and it's hard to let go. A crisis would take that part of it out of the equation.
Yes. It would warm back up when it's over. It would be a local extinction level event for Europe.
Let that stand as emphasis. :lol:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I have been a steaming kettle of bad ideas which seemed like good ideas.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
You hit the nail on its head. Full employment, continual GDP growth, new production, and all that are the national policy--the environment be damned. Unfortunately, a radical response to the ecological and economic crisis of global warming could bring about an economic disaster on its own. Carbon neutrality by 2035, '45, '55, '65--pick a date--would require so wrenching a change in society--one so severe that the outcome would be unacceptable. Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out.
Quoting frank
"Never let a good crisis go to waste", but if global heating isn't a sufficient crisis what did you have in mind? Something spectacularly bad but which we still survive...
Indeed, it is hard to let go of "this world" and die into a different one. I haven't become a vegetarian yet, which is NOT the toughest thing in the world to do.
I want this on my tombstone.
Quoting BC
I'm drawing a blank on what kind of crisis would do it.
I totally agree with this statement.
Do you mean that I don't believe the same as you?
Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence?
One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.
I always try to listen to both sides and think about what everybody says.
Factual matters (like gravity) don't have two sides. A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other". Some pairs of political ideas are mutually exclusive -- like dictatorship and democracy.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I'm not at all sure we WILL stop global warming, but given that it is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuel) it CAN be stopped--provided we get on with the task in a very forthright manner.
If global warming were something caused by a natural solar cycle of some kind, for instance, we would not be able to do anything about it. But that isn't the case.
Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came along.
Quoting BC
If a creationist and a scientist can manage to talk to each other in a respectful way then it is possible that progress can be made.
Quoting BC
Yes. But there are probably some countries where dictatorship works better, and other countries where democracy works better.
Your “evidence” like “all these countries have many cows, so good luck with that’s methane problem” (your first example).
Don’t try to blame everyone else for your climate denial, ignorant stamens and weak “evidence” — which was refuted systematically by those who actually know something about the topic.
No, the main problem is that unequivocal evidence is being obfuscated by those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. They spread a lot of misinformation through social and other media which is then repeated by others for their own reasons.
Again there are not ‘two sides to the story’. The only progress in that scenario would be the abandonment of creationism, any other outcome would be regressive.
Later on I’ll find some of the current stories about efforts to mitigate climate change, of which there are many. For example https://wapo.st/3qj9DAh
I don't dispute that climate change is happening. I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
No. You sound like a very well-informed climate change denier. However I have so far no reason to accept these claims as factual, beyond your assurances.
That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.
John Deere Co. recently retired one of its oldest plow models--the kind that turns the soil over. A lot of crop farmers have switched to minimum tillage agriculture, and rather than plows, chisels are used to create a narrow furrow, without disturbing the soil on either side. Planters are designed to create a little hole in the furrow into which the seed is inserted. Again, less disturbance of the soil.
Regenerative farming is far less capital intensive than trying to extract carbon mechanically or chemically from the atmosphere and then storing it deep underground in old oil wells.
Building with wood rather than concrete is another way to sequester carbon. By using cultivated forest products made into engineered wooden beams and plywood, the structure can store carbon.
Here is a 25 story wood-frame bldg. in Milwaukee. WI. Posts, beams, and other structural parts are made with many cross-laminated layers of wood which are very strong. They are also fire resistant.
Fast growing trees are another carbon sequester. Poplars and Cottonwoods grow quite fast and can be used in various wood products.
Suddenly we’ve changed our stance, I see…
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Good to know you’re now miraculously “looking at which solutions are effective.”
Tell me some, and I’ll tell you how they’re complete crap, then support my claim with solid “evidence” like this: “Good luck with that.”
How the laminated pieces will hold up over 100 years... I don't know. Probably pretty well, assuming the building is consistently maintained. There are 60 to 80 year old buildings with laminated supports that are doing fine.
My data has not been peer reviewed or published (except on my website which no longer exists). I decided that trying to get it peer reviewed would be a huge waste of my time because it is "at odds with the mainstream consensus".
Anybody can look at my data and see if it is reasonable and makes sense. Anything wrong with the data would stick out like a sore thumb.
As I said before, I grouped the data into 216 countries. I would have liked to also group it into the 50 states of America but it was already a huge task grouping it into 216 countries. Just within the last few days I have found data for the states of America on Wikipedia. I am about to analyse this data to see if it is consistent with my analysis of the 216 countries. If you are interested then I can post some results on this discussion. Anybody will be able check my results using the data on Wikipedia.
Compared to what?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Typical conspiracy theorist thinking.
You challenged climate science and scientists many times in this thread based on data which you claim is valid without any support. It seems to me that your sole aim in posting in this forum is to cast doubt on climate science.
That was a paradigm shift but neither contested the existence of gravity. So a shitty analogy.
Climate-change/global-warming is a very "emotional" issue. Look at how many times I have been called a Denier on this discussion even though I have clearly stated that I don't dispute that climate change is happening.
[quote=The Conversation;https://theconversation.com/from-newton-to-einstein-the-origins-of-general-relativity-50013]In the 17th century Newton concluded that objects fall because they are pulled by Earth's gravity. Einstein's interpretation was that these objects do not fall. According to Einstein, these objects and Earth just freely move in a curved spacetime and this curvature is induced by mass and energy of these objects.
The equations that he presented in 1915 not only led to a completely different interpretation of events around us but also ...[/quote]
It provokes strong emotions because it's a real danger to civilisation. Countries need to work together to address it and doing so is going to be extremey challenging. So calling the science into question doesn't help to do that, other than from serious scientists who have constructive criticisms. And there are many vested interests who do have a climate-change denial agenda, so it is hardly surprising that the appearance of such claims provokes strong emotions. There is much at stake.
And while you say you agree that it happens, you also call the science into question:
[quote=Agree to Disagree]"Another mistake that climate scientists make is to just use a temperature anomaly" (x2)
"Who was the “genius” who decided that the Little Ice Age (otherwise known as pre-industrial times) was the perfect temperature for the whole Earth? ... It was a Climate Scientist who doesn’t look at actual temperatures."
"Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies"
"Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year"
"are you saying that sometimes (climate) scientists get it wrong? That their assessment of the speed of change was not correct.
How do we know that they are not wrong about other things?"
"I think that burning gigatons of fossil fuels causes some problems. ....There are many other important problems that also need our attention"[/quote]
I really don't agree that you're posting in good faith. First, you only ever post in this topic, second, with the sole purpose of questioning the science. I think it's an example of the motte-and-baily fallacy. This occurs when someone advances a controversial claim—one that's difficult to defend—and when challenged retreats to an uncontroversial claim. The bold claim is the bailey, the safe claim the motte. Here, your 'safety position' is the agreement that climate change is occuring. The bailey claim is that the scientists have it all wrong, and that you know better. That is really the only thing you show any interest in discussing.
This is a philosophy forum, on which there happens to be a thread discussing climate change. If you really want to call the science into question, then why don't you join one of the many climate change discussion forums that do have the resources to check your data, which may, for all we know, be entirely spurious. The moderators have discussed your posts, and while we're in agreement that you're in the wrong, you're not as yet breaching the terms of service, although at least one mod believes that if you have joined for the sole purpose of propogating your climate-change views, that you might have done so.
In any case, and as far as I'm concerned, you are not welcome to use this platform to disseminate your spurious opinions, and I am not going to respond to your claims henceforth.
Scientific people, and scientists, should be skeptical. They shouldn't just accept everything that they are told.
Whenever I am told something I immediately try to think of a way that I can prove that it is incorrect. Like falsifiability. I tend to question everything.
:100:
It reminds me of the old trope "I'm not a racist, but..." where whatever follows the 'but' is bound to be something racist.
Isn't me talking about Russia possibly not wanting to fight climate-change an example of that?
Isn't my initial example of methane from cows an example of the difficulty of fighting climate-change.
I am definitely challenging the ability to fight climate-change.
Unless I'm mistaken, the cow-fart angle is from the 1990s? Or 1980s? This makes me think you've got some age on you?
My question is: do you remember days before people made a big deal out of climate change? Like a few people knew about it, but most people were completely unaware?
If so, what was that shift like: toward a kind of fervor developing around it?
But most people seem to refuse to accept personal responsibility for the problem. They claim that it is all the fault of the oil companies. Climate change will not be solved with that attitude.
I repeat. There was no disagreement on the existence of gravity. So your analogy is still shit.
Neither will it be solved by doing nothing. Humanity should be trying every reasonable approach consistent with good ecological practice to counteract what it knows to be contributing factors to climate change. It may well be that some types of remediation are more effective than others. That's why they need to be tried. Now is not the time for quietism. The will to effect change is essential. As solutions are tried our understanding of the mechanics of the problem will grow, leading to new, better solutions. That's how it works.
The cow fart angle is still a current concern. Somebody has just developed a food supplement for cows that is meant to reduce methane by about 30%.
You are correct, I do have some age on me. And I have a very good memory. I remember in 1976 (my first year at university, doing Chemistry Honours, Physics, and Biology) when the news of a possible pending Ice Age came out. I can remember being in a lecture theatre and thinking "I will worry about an Ice Age if it happens".
I have seen (and lived through) many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- fear of the Y2K bug (I was given the job of checking the software of the company that I worked for)
- fear of the impending ice age
- fear of Halley's comet
- fears about the Large Hadron Collider
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- etc
This is probably what made me initially skeptical about global warming (before it became climate change). However, I changed my mind and accepted that global warming/climate change is happening.
I think that the awareness of global warming grew out of the work of some scientists (e.g. James Hansen) and was picked up by the environmental movement that was already worried about (non-CO2) types of pollution and other environmental disasters (deforestation, mining, loss of habitats, extinction of species, etc).
I didn't know that. So they really think cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions? As it turns out, there's another problem with American beef. They feed them corn, which makes American beef unusually fatty. It tastes good but it contributes to obesity, heart disease, and strokes. If they just stopped feeding them corn, Americans would be healthier, and not just slightly healthier, a lot more.
If cattle are also contributing to global warming, that would be another good reason to just cut back on producing beef. Or stop it altogether?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
So you have literally never known a world that didn't have doom hanging over it. Does that mean you had to get comfortable with doom? How did you deal with that?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Right. I've read about that, but you lived through it?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Was acid rain abd ozone depletion also part of it? I read that there was overlap with those things and an amplified greenhouse effect. Same scientists?
Most people do think that cattle farming is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. But most people don't understand the Biogenic Carbon Cycle. If you are interested there is a very good article here:
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle
Here is a quote from the article
:lol:
I think that’s climate denial bingo.
Mmm, I don't think so. Most people don't know the US government once did a massive study on cow farts to determine it's environmental effects.
But it's not true that their farts are absorbed by plants. Methane is lighter than air, so it travels from their butts straight up to the stratosphere.
No, that's you not knowing anything about history.
It’s not “cow farts.” Try reading about the subject.
Right. No one is a climate denier these days — at least according to climate deniers.
Just like racism is a thing of the past — according to Fox News.
For anyone who wants to learn about this very common, very tired, very stupid denialist trope.
Also, this is funny (and accurate):
The previous link that I gave you shows that cattle don't contribute much to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions.
Here is another article which explains some of the positive aspects of cattle farming:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
Here are some quotes from the article:
Yea, I don't think anyone thinks cattle farming is the culprit. It's fossil fuel consumption.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable
They contribute a good deal to global warming. Try learning about the subject.
Yes, I know that most of the methane is from "burping". Frank said "the cow fart angle" and I just used the same name to avoid more explanation. Most people jokingly call it the cow fart problem.
Oh, cool. Glad you knew that all along.
So you also know that the “coming ice age” you mentioned in your list of doom hysteria — not-so-subtly implying that climate change is (could be?) hysteria as well — is utter bullshit? Basically taken from one Newsweek article that did not once suggest this was a consensus among scientists anywhere CLOSE to AGW?
I’m sure you know that too.
But that was decades ago.
Yes, I think that there has always been some level of doom hanging around for most of my life (I am now in my 60's). You don't really ever get totally comfortable with doom (because there is always a small chance that it might happen). My normal strategy is to ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. This explains why I was initially very skeptical about global warming.
Quoting frank
Yes, I lived through the fear of an impending ice age. I also lived through the fear of acid rain and the fear of ozone depletion. My memory is good but these doom issues were somewhere between 30 and 45 years ago. My recollection of the timing of the different issues is a bit fuzzy.
I don't know if it was the same scientists.
I'm guessing you'd have to buffer all that doom somehow: keep it at arms length to plan for your own future.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I was reading some science fiction short stories and there was one where these people are struggling to survive the onset of an ice age, but then the protagonist wakes up and global warming is what's really happening. It was supposed to be about the psychological whiplash related to ice-age to global-warming news.
Right. Yet that won’t stop ignoramuses from discussing it at length. “Scientists were screaming we were all gonna freeze to death in 10 years!”
It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic— and dangerous.
Cows produce methane and CO2. But they don't contribute much to global warming.
Read the link that I gave earlier about the Biogenic Carbon Cycle.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
So you literally quote from a MEAT COMPANY. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.
Good lord.
Here is a graph from the NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3139/six-questions-to-help-you-understand-the-6th-warmest-year-on-record
It shows a graph of the temperature anomaly versus the year for a number of temperature series (NASA Gistemp, HadcrutV5, NOAA, and Berkeley Earth). They all agree with each other.
Note the sudden change in temperature trend at about 1940. It changed suddenly from an increasing temperature trend to a decreasing temperature trend. The decreasing temperature trend went from about 1940 to about 1970 or 1975 (a 30 to 35 year trend). Scientists raised the issue of a possible pending ice age around about the mid 70's.
In a previous post I said that I remember the scare being in 1976 (my first year at university).
Why don't you comment on what they say, rather than who they are?
I think that's because it was in the 1970s that historic geography took off. In the early 20th Century, they thought there had only been four ice ages based on what they saw in rock formations. By the 1970s they started understanding continental drift and seeing much further back. It was from analyzing the graphs of temperature undulations that they reasoned that an ice age was coming soon. They still didn't know what causes ice ages, though, so there was a lot of uncertainty.
Climatology has exploded since then.
You may be thinking about this episode of Twilight Zone
Ha! Same plot. But mine was definitely in an anthology of old science fiction stories.
Care you cite some articles?
Most scientists, even back then, were far more concerned about global warming — the effects of which were known and understood decades prior.
The consensus was hardly suggesting an ice age was imminent. There was speculation, among some scientists, about the cooling effect of aerosols. That’s all it was.
Odd that you don’t remember the warnings about global warming from back then. Talk about selective memory.
It wasn't just aerosols, but that's beside his point, which was that he has doomsday fatigue from a lifetime of hearing about the end of the world.
That should be of interest to anyone who cares about the environment and wants to understand how people react to news of threatening conditions.
Because it’s cherry picked nonsense, of the Bjorn Lomborg variety.
—
So it’s just worth summarizing/repeating: Climate change is happening, and rapidly. We’re the cause. It’s an existential threat. The solutions are available; the obstacles are time and political will.
Quoting The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think, NY Times
And in spite of all of the concerted efforts to block it.
I'll answer this. There were so many other things happening during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, it must have slipped right past me. I do remember the oil embargo. Maybe you can pull up some of those articles from those eras, warning of global warming. I'm curious.
I don't think it was confirmed until they had super computers to run the models on.
I did mention a speech by Margeret Thatcher to the UN in 1989, warning of the looming issue of greenhouse gases, as it was mainly called then. NASA scientist James Hansen provided an urgent warning to the US Senate in 1988, which largely went unheeded.
Back then we experienced with our unbelieving eyes the first dog in space, the exploration of the planets, and man leaving footprints on the Moon. Yet the exploration of the oceans and of Earth beneath our feet is still incomplete to this day.
Much of what we think we know of past ice ages comes from three deep ice core samples drilled out of the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice cap. This was done to explore the geological and biological archeology of Earth, including the timescale of past ice ages.
What was seen is shocking indeed. According to the record, we appear to be living in a relatively short-period warming of a long-lasting ice age. As long as there are ice caps over the poles we could claim to be in an ice age. Or not.
The anxiety that Quoting Agree to Disagree recalls was quite real back then. The fear was that our balmy existence could quickly, say in a decade, revert back to its normal frozen ways except for wide swath of equatorial belt.
I read this too. Front page of the Sunday Times.
It’s a little misleading, I think. Emissions are still rising, oil drilling projects are still being done, transmission lines aren’t being built, solar and wind farms are being blocked or delayed— to say nothing about the Republicans grotesque game plan to reverse every regulation and incentive on the books and further accelerate fossil fuel use
That being said— this article does highlight some areas of hope.
Quoting jgill
Here’s a reference:
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1
Even Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977– from their own scientists.
Also worth googling Syukuro Manabe. His research is from the 60s. He’s also a Nobel prize winner.
Posted this about two months ago.
Well, the result is in:
Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case
A bit of good news. Figured I’d share.
Ought to be a major stumbling block for Republican efforts to wind back climate change amelioration efforts in the very unlikely event that they win office.
Here are the parts of this news story that stand out to me:
Why do you think the government rested after just one day and did not call its main expert witness ???
As an older person (in my 60's) why should I take personal responsibility for climate change? Young people seem to blame everyone except themselves (e.g. oil companies and older people). They refuse to take responsibility for their own carbon footprint and blame it all on the oil companies.
This is your chance to convince me that I should personally do something about climate change. Or you can ask me questions. Insulting me makes me less likely to do anything about climate change.
Would it be insulting to suggest that this seems a petulant response? None of this is a personal matter. How you feel about it is irrelevant, and whether 'young people blame others' is also irrelevant. Human induced climate change is a clear and present danger, and action needs to be taken to stop it. Hopefully this thread can continue to highlight more or less successul attempts to do that, and to discuss the issues involved in ameliorating climate change.
lol. "Carbon footprint."
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
You mean the blatant climate denier who pretends to care/know anything about the subject -- and repeatedly says that nothing can be done about it -- won't do anything if he's insulted?! Oh no!
Quoting Agree to Disagree
As you go on to quote the ultra right-wing government officials. That just happens to "stand out" to you. How predictably pathetic.
Go shill for the oil companies somewhere else.
So Big Oil invented the term "carbon footprint" to try to trick me into taking personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce.
Thank you for "educating" me. Now I know that I don't need to take personal responsibility for the amount of CO2 that I produce. I can produce any amount of CO2 and not feel guilty about it. It is Big Oil's fault, not mine.
Correct.
Now go shill for oil companies elsewhere— and take your climate denial with you.
Well that was easy @Agree to Disagree
What's your next trick?
I am not sure what you mean by that Frank.
Please explain it to a foolish old man.
You're off the hook for climate change. :up:
It’s clear where some line up.
Help !!!
I am not sure if I have fallen into a universe of recursive sarcasm.
I was being sarcastic when I said "It is Big Oil's fault, not mine".
Now I am not sure if you thought that my comment was sarcastic and you have given me a sarcastic reply, or if you thought that my comment was genuine and you have given me a genuine reply.
To make it clear (with no sarcasm), I believe that people need to take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint.
If Mikie and other people like him won't take personal responsibility for their own carbon footprint, then why should I.
Oil companies just supply us with what we demand. We are "oil addicts" who are blaming the suppliers for giving us what we want. I blame supermarkets for making people fat (warning - this comment may be sarcastic).
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Agree to Disagree
lol. Glad you swallow their propaganda whole. Nice job.
I agree with you. I assume your point is that if the average person doesn't limit consumption, that makes your efforts to do so meaningless?
Yes, it is almost totally meaningless. And it is totally negligible. Why should I limit my consumption for something that is totally negligible.
It also does not seem like "justice" that I make an effort when most other people don't.
Yes. It's true.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/july-2023-hottest-month-record-climate-change-5e5b3097
Interesting seeing that headline in the WSJ. That would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
I have been looking at temperature data for the USA on the internet. There is a lot of interesting information. For those who are open-minded enough to have a look, here is just one example (there are many more).
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records/all/tmax
This webpage has data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For each state the webpage shows the state name, the element, the value, the date, the location, etc. Note that near the top of the page it says "August U.S. Release: Mon, 11 Sep 2023, 11:00 AM EDT". Ignoring the fact that "Mon, 11 Sep 2023" is in the future, we can assume that the data on this webpage is recent.
For each state have a look at the record maximum temperature and the date that it occurred on. To make things easier to understand there is a Wikipedia webpage showing the same data. The advantage of the Wikipedia webpage is that you can sort on any of the columns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_territory_temperature_extremes
The table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in the 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the 5 inhabited U.S. territories during the past two centuries, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.
Go to the table a little way down the page. Click on the "sort" control in the Date column for "Record high temperatures (the 3rd column in). Click on the "sort" control again to sort the dates into descending order.
Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature AFTER 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 20.
Now count the number of states that had their record high temperature BEFORE 1970. For those who don't want to do the counting, the answer is 36.
8 states had their record high temperature between 1911 and 1929.
24 states had their record high temperature in the 1930's. The 1930's were very hot in America.
What do people think that this data means?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
The record hottest day in California was in Death Valley. The coldest in Alaska was -80 at Prospect Creek. Regardless of the authority of the source, how could this data possibly address global warming or even 'hottest month ever'?
As to your earlier comment about fears of an ice age. Here's a nice read: https://longreads.com/2017/04/13/in-1975-newsweek-predicted-a-new-ice-age-were-still-living-with-the-consequences/
I distinctly get the impression you're not arguing in good faith.
I am not arguing.
All that I did was show people some data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
I didn't say what I thought the data means. I just asked, "What do people think that this data means?".
Right— says the guy who uses meat companies’ websites as an authority on methane emissions, blames young people for their “Carbon footprint,” defends oil companies as “just giving people what they demand,” and claims nothing can be done to stop climate change.
“Just asking questions.” How about this: take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Have I just discovered something climate scientists the world over have missed, or am I just deluding myself?”
Don’t worry— I’m not arguing. I’m just asking questions.
Worth reposting, since you completely ignored it:
Quoting Benkei
Both links are worth reading. For anyone truly interested in this topic, as you claim to be, doing so is the bare minimal.
I just wanted to thank both of you for showing that you can engage someone without anyone being called a "buffoon" or anyone being told to "shut the fuck up." That's great!
Quoting Agree to Disagree
What do you think it means?
I have taken 10 seconds and here is my answer.
The data that I showed people was presumably compiled by scientists (possibly climate scientists). All that I did was bring it to people's attention. So I am not deluding myself.
If you are surprised by the data that I pointed out then you should take 10 seconds and ask the following QUESTION: “Why haven't climate scientists told people about this data?".
A second QUESTION: "Is this data an inconvenient truth?".
From the website you used, here's the page you should be using: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series
trends in fahrenheit:
Alabama: +0.2
Alaska: +3.3
Arizona: +2.0
California: +2.3
Well you get the picture...
:lol:
You cracked the case buddy.
The climate scientists aren’t telling people about the data YOU “discovered” because they’re trying to fool people into getting scared about climate change, so that China, George Soros, and the UN can implement more controls and usher in the New World Order.
Thank you for educating us with your groundbreaking work, blowing the lid off the whole thing. I’ll nominate you for a Nobel prize.
When dealing with record maximum temperatures and record minimum temperatures there are only 2 datapoints per year per state. 2 datapoints is all that is needed. If you don't understand that then you need to do a mathematics or statistics course.
It is great that you have looked on the internet and found the webpage on statewide time-series. I haven't had time to look at it yet but I will try to look at it in the next day or two.
You don't seem to understand. The data that I showed people was compiled by scientists/climate scientists. I didn't compile the data.
If you are casting doubt on this data then you are casting doubt on the scientists/climate scientists who compiled this data.
Are you suggesting that we can't trust scientists/climate scientists?
It's called cherry-picking.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
It's the same website as yours. Please stop lying here or we'll take that as trolling. Stop pretending surprise, or lack of time - while ordering 26,000 datapoints across 216 countries - except... checks notes... there are only 195 countries in the world recognised by every other country, or, indeed, pretending you didn't know the data was there on the NOAA website or that there was an ice age scare in the 70s (there wasn't).
You don't understand the claims made by the IPCC and introduce irrelevant data and then become disingenuous with your "innocent" questions. You're reinforcing my earlier suspicion you're not here in good faith.
Why didn't you ask me where I got 216 countries from, rather than accuse me of lying.
As well as the 195 countries that you mentioned I also calculated data for these 28 locations
American Samoa (US), Anguilla (UK), Aruba (NL), Bermuda (UK), British Virgin Islands (UK), Cayman Islands (UK), Channel Islands, Cook Islands, Cote d'Ivoire, Curacao, Faroe Islands (Denmark), French Guiana, Gibraltar (UK), Greenland (Denmark), Guadeloupe, Isle of Man (UK), Macedonia, Martinique, Moyotte, New Caledonia (France), Northern Mariana Islands (US), Puerto Rico (US), Reunion, Saint Helena (UK), Swaziland, Turks and Caicos Islands (UK), U. S. Virgin Islands, Wallis and Futuna (France)
I didn't have any data for these 7 locations
Andorra, Eswatini, Ivory Coast, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Palestine, Romania
Note that 195 + 28 - 7 = 216
I had to use the locations that were already in the raw data that I processed.
You were lying here when pretending you weren't aware this data was on the website you used for your min-max temperatures, which is what I was referring to. The min-max temps are not highlighted or front and centre, the data I shared is, so you purposefully picked other data for a reason. Considering the thread you mostly post in, it's not hard to guess why.
Do you realise how many webpages there are on the NOAA website?
How can I be expected to know about all of them? I probably only know about less than 1% of them.
Right right— you just discovered that they’re hiding it from the public. Excellent work.
Could you explain what you think this data shows?
Thanks. If anybody else is interested in an interesting discussion, let me know. I can add you on.
I have just found the most amazing website which shows "The Weather Year Round Anywhere on Earth"
It has incredible temperature maps which show the average temperature for a large number of locations by time of year and time of day
The website is called
https://weatherspark.com
Here is the home page
Have a look at how many locations never even get "warm" (e.g. London, Vancouver, San Francisco, Stockholm, plus many many more)
Sure.
:lol:
Climate change: refuted.
Yep. Totally refuted. :rofl:
The commentary on this photo, dated 2015, was that it is a female who has to stay near to land to feed her young. As the pack ice that she would usually swim out and forage on has been radically depleted by (ahem) climate change there is insufficient food and she and her cubs are facing imminent death. One of many species threatened by climate change.
"It’s part of a newly-filed update to Duke’s 2022 integrated resource plan as the utility aims to comply with North Carolina’s emission mandates. That 2021 law requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 70% by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. The law also calls for net-zero emissions by 2050."
That is all irrelevant to your argument. To show that there is or there is no global warming you have to find data that is global not local, cover at least decades, and that also can be clearly interpreted convincingly to non-experts like us to strongly suggest one or the other alternative.
What could that be? London is too local, any specific maximum temperature reading is too prone to some special occurrence at that time and place. What can be used are the mean temperature reading taken globally by satellites and summarized graphically for non-mathematicians. Agencies with supercomputers like ECMWF or the NOAA do this. There are a number of historical global charts maintained just for discussions like ours.
All you have to do is find one great chart that supports your argument, whatever you say your argument may be.
One that I like is this one because each decade is shown in a different color, starting with the 1940's at the bottom and the 2020's at the top as I would expect from a claim of incessant global warming. The very top line is 2023
Given that El Nino is kicking in, and that last January 2022 the vulcano Hunga-Tonga blasted water crystals all over the stratosphere, and most of all because humanity is FUBAR, there is little good to hope for here. I'm worried but not yet panicked.
He has never argued against global warming. One of the moderators continuously responds as if he has made that argument, even though he has repeatedly explained that he does affirm global warming. It's just confusion coming from the moderators for reasons only they might know.
Exactly. But like most climate deniers, he’ll go on believing climate scientists are “hiding” things from the public.
“Look! This place hasn’t gotten that warm this year. Why wouldn’t climate scientists tell us this??”
It’s just so transparent it’s barely worth responding to seriously anymore. But I’m glad you did.
I spent a few braincells wondering why the global temperature seemed to mimic the N. hemisphere seasons. Then i realised that the extremes of the seasonal temperature variation take place on land, and most of the land is in the N.
*Puts the tinfoil hat down again, gently.*
There IS a planet "B".
It is called the Southern Hemisphere :grin:
Sorry. I should have split the sentences and started a new heading. Even better, make a separate post for a philosophical rant.
Saying anything about any scientific subject at least implies an expressed or unexpressed position by the speaker and further that there exists some sort of scientific support for that position.
Pro or con.
But normally, on popularized scientific topics only the pro positions are acceptable for fear that children might believe them. For example, If I now propose a hypothetically possible case against global warming or one for a rapidly approaching ice age, rather than being ignored it will raise eyebrows and I might be accused of ignorance or ill will.
I think that point and others similar are reasons for doubt. Up to about 10 years ago I was uncommitted on global warming but the evidence kept piling on year after year until I gave in. Most importantly the Antarctic ice sheet was getting colder and thicker even after Greenland started melting. This plus that the Southern Hemisphere has longer and colder winters by a slight bit due to the Earth's orbit not being perfectly round. But sea levels and temperatures were rising globally and that was what I was watching for.
Gotcha. It's just that a pile-on has started a couple of times on the poor guy, and I just thought that was abusive and wrong. I found that just piping up from time to time kept the yen from devaluating. :razz:
And I understand that there probably are people of ill will roaming about. It's easy enough to sort it out.
Not true. I pointed out that he adopts the pose that acknowledges climate change BUT then says that climate science and scientists have gotten it all wrong, and that nothing can be done about it, along with irrelevant and preposterous arguments to the effect that more people die from cold than from heat, that not everywhere on the planet is hot, etc. Plainly intent on muddying the waters.
Meanwhile in the real world
[quote=CNN; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html]America’s wealthiest people are also some of the world’s biggest polluters – not only because of their massive homes and private jets, but because of the fossil fuels generated by the companies they invest their money in.
A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead.
“Global warming can be this huge, overwhelming, nebulous thing happening in the world and you feel like you’ve got no agency over it. You kind of know that you’re contributing to it in some way, but it’s really not clear or quantifiable,” said Jared Starr, a sustainability scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a report author.[/quote]
See source for more.
You're agreeing that he acknowledges climate change. Whatever else he might think, none of it warrants abuse. Ban him if you don't like him. Don't engage in a pile on with nasty language. That's just unnecessary.
None of what I said constituted abuse.