The Earth is on track to surpass the 1.5 degree Celsius benchmark for increasing temperatures under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in the next 5 years. The goal under the Paris Climate Agreement is to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius or ideally 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels. The effects of climate change include melting ice caps that in turn lead to sea level rise, along with more intense heat waves, flooding, rainfall, and droughts. Shows that action is needed to control climate change.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/world/gl ... index.html

We can all help by stopping flying for fun. Just a waste.

there is now a 66% chance that the planet’s temperature will climb above 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels for at least one year

That's odd to focus on a single year like that. The climate goes through multi-year cycles, which is why climatologists focus on multi-year averages, not individual years.

It clicked after I looked up the actual report, instead of CNN: This is the World Meteorological Organization, not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Both are UN organizations, but the former is focused on weather and "short" term forecasts ("short" in this context includes known periodic cycles and trends that sometimes last multiple years, like the El Nino Southern Oscillation signal).

The full quote in the actual report is:

WMO wrote:

The chance of global near-surface temperature exceeding 1.5°C above preindustrial levels for at least one year between 2023 and 2027 is more likely than not (66%). It is unlikely (32%) that the five-year mean will exceed this threshold.

It seems like CNN is trying to get readers to conflate the overall climate trend with the medium term cycles. They're related because the cycles occur on top of the climate trend, but they each have distinct implications.

Although we're heading to 1.5°C regardless, the distinction is important to make, because otherwise it looks like there is a conflict with the work of the IPCC. And really the last thing climate scientists need is for the media to give climate deniers more arrows for the "there is no consensus" quiver.

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=11611

So take the WMO's forecast of a probable limited term exceedence of 1.5°C as a long term weather forecast, but as normal, go to the IPCC for the climate forecast. The IPCC actually has a special report specifically attempting to predict when climate change will exceed 1.5°C:

IPCC wrote:

Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

iamlucky13 wrote:

there is now a 66% chance that the planet’s temperature will climb above 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels for at least one year

That's odd to focus on a single year like that. The climate goes through multi-year cycles, which is why climatologists focus on multi-year averages, not individual years.

And, in all these multiple years, the climate has been warming. Maybe we could just think and pray because that seems to be the only answer for other man-made catastrophes.

seb146 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

there is now a 66% chance that the planet’s temperature will climb above 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels for at least one year

That's odd to focus on a single year like that. The climate goes through multi-year cycles, which is why climatologists focus on multi-year averages, not individual years.

And, in all these multiple years, the climate has been warming. Maybe we could just think and pray because that seems to be the only answer for other man-made catastrophes.

Every tenth of a degree in average global temperature will make a huge difference and this shows why action on climate change is needed.

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

That's odd to focus on a single year like that. The climate goes through multi-year cycles, which is why climatologists focus on multi-year averages, not individual years.

And, in all these multiple years, the climate has been warming. Maybe we could just think and pray because that seems to be the only answer for other man-made catastrophes.

Every tenth of a degree in average global temperature will make a huge difference and this shows why action on climate change is needed.

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

seb146 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And, in all these multiple years, the climate has been warming. Maybe we could just think and pray because that seems to be the only answer for other man-made catastrophes.

Every tenth of a degree in average global temperature will make a huge difference and this shows why action on climate change is needed.

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Every tenth of a degree in average global temperature will make a huge difference and this shows why action on climate change is needed.

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

Stop buying crap you don't need and traveling for pretty much most reasons.

Its not someone else doing all the damage...its us. Cumulatively.

Yeah, they turned the power off during that winter storm to help save energy…

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

Every tenth of a degree in average global temperature will make a huge difference and this shows why action on climate change is needed.

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

A few Billion people less on this planet would definitely help…

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Interesting site with different measurements. This one though shows the sea rise.

What folks forget a lot , is that sea rise isn't caused just by melting glaciers. Warmer waters take up more space, so as average temperature rises, so too does the average temperature of water, which makes it expand.

Rember the old ideal gas law equation from science and physics. PV=nRT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

This is also why storms and low pressures cause such high coastal flooding. They drop the pressure, which means the Volume increases to maintain the equation assuming constant temperatures.

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

It is an interesting conundrum, but after a few years of trying to get parts for ICE, I think they will be ready for the EV, right?

Of course the EV replacement parts need to get cheaper, but i think we are a decae away from Break even.

EVs are going to be the future, especially in Africa, solar for powering them. But meantime Africans need cheap transportation, and used ICEs fill the bill. What will it be, 2030 before there are enough used EVs for shipping to low income countries?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

EVs are going to be the future, especially in Africa, solar for powering them. But meantime Africans need cheap transportation, and used ICEs fill the bill. What will it be, 2030 before there are enough used EVs for shipping to low income countries?

Have you been to Africa? Looking at what passes for a grid in lots of third world cities, I don’t see EV being very useful for quite awhile. That’s in the cities, outside of the cities there’s nothing. Yes, lots of Sun, in the Sahara, south of it, it’s pretty cloudy much of the time. Where there’s people, there’s reduced sun, where’s there’s sun, there’s few people. ZAR, maybe.

Just as Africa has used cell phones in place of a wired grid, and smart phones for banking. I suspect that rural Africa will bypass national electric grids in favor of local grids. Most of Africa gets a lot of sun, and solar panels will do most of the heavy lifting in those communities. China is already selling cheapo EVs, and Africa is interested. Just as the first 100 or two (and then a few thousand) watts is the most valuable, transportation for the first 50 miles will be the most valuable when it comes to electric vehicles.

Germany does well with sun, despite being far to the north and cloudy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

Would have been nice when your generation had stepped up and start with a change instead of the “just ignore it” stance.

marcelh wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

Would have been nice when your generation had stepped up and start with a change instead of the “just ignore it” stance.

It’s not generational, no one of all generations are going to sacrifice their lifestyles. Africa, China and India aren’t playing along, beyond lip service, because their governments aren’t about to tell their citizens “suck it up, you’re not living like the developed world”. Look at population growth, economic growth, growth in electricity usage and tell me we’re really going back to pre-industrial levels of carbon. It’s a very small percentage of the world that is really going to put skin in the game for climate change.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

marcelh wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

Would have been nice when your generation had stepped up and start with a change instead of the “just ignore it” stance.

It’s not generational, no one of all generations are going to sacrifice their lifestyles. Africa, China and India aren’t playing along, beyond lip service, because their governments aren’t about to tell their citizens “suck it up, you’re not living like the developed world”. Look at population growth, economic growth, growth in electricity usage and tell me we’re really going back to pre-industrial levels of carbon. It’s a very small percentage of the world that is really going to put skin in the game for climate change.

There are many trends that are beginning that may very well meet the need.
EV Vehicle sales are not slowing down. They continue to rise, with many new vehicles coming this way.
ICE vehicles are not going to be cheaper in the long run Too many moving parts in the engines. Livelihoods have been built on combusion and exhuast systems.

While cetain markets and generations may love their ICE vehicles ,. the infrastructure and sales are starting to shift dramatically towards electicity and renewables.


https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/27/us ... t-quarter/

https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity ... production

Solar wind and Geothermal are becoming larger production sources.
Nuclear may make a comback as oil shocks keep coming.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

marcelh wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

Would have been nice when your generation had stepped up and start with a change instead of the “just ignore it” stance.

It’s not generational, no one of all generations are going to sacrifice their lifestyles. Africa, China and India aren’t playing along, beyond lip service, because their governments aren’t about to tell their citizens “suck it up, you’re not living like the developed world”.

So what you are saying is that those people have to live in the Stone Age because your generation has spilled too much resources for their own benefit, ignoring the consequences for the future.

Real problem is not what is happening today, but what has happened in the past and the western world has given a lousy example to the rest of the world.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

marcelh wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Hilariously, CNN reported that the ICE cars being replaced with EV are being shipped to the 3rd countries, the example being Benin. Africa has a burgeoning population, steadily growing econ8mies that want developed countries lifestyle but can’t afford new cars and other goods. We’re just shipping cars and pollution to even more badly polluted countries. See China and India for what the future looks like.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/21/africa/w ... index.html

Would have been nice when your generation had stepped up and start with a change instead of the “just ignore it” stance.

It’s not generational, no one of all generations are going to sacrifice their lifestyles. Africa, China and India aren’t playing along, beyond lip service, because their governments aren’t about to tell their citizens “suck it up, you’re not living like the developed world”. Look at population growth, economic growth, growth in electricity usage and tell me we’re really going back to pre-industrial levels of carbon. It’s a very small percentage of the world that is really going to put skin in the game for climate change.

How about people buying less stuff from China and India?.

marcelh wrote:

Real problem is not what is happening today, but what has happened in the past and the western world has given a lousy example to the rest of the world.

If you don't think the real problem is happening today , I guess the following statistics mean nothing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276 ... missions/=

World CO2 Emissions in billion metric tonnes
1962. 9.75
1972. 16.23
1982. 18.88
1992. 22.58
2002. 26.28
2012. 35.01
2022. 37.49

And it's not the western world driving this growth. Which is even more remarkable considering that the western world has served as a population relief valve for the rest of the world.

LabQuest wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

Stop buying crap you don't need and traveling for pretty much most reasons.

Its not someone else doing all the damage...its us. Cumulatively.

I hate to bring what went on in the last few years into this but it is incredibly relevant.

Over the course of the Covid19 pandemic it was the poor and middle class that were asked to predominantly suspend their lives in the effort to contain the pandemic and many of them were put at increased risk to keep the economy moving and food on the shelves while many of us chilled at home. I never feared the virus but I went to work everyday through 4 lockdowns in Ontario at a considerable cost to my mental health (which because I am in a new job is beginning to recover). All while the top executives at my company were at home and are still at home 2-3 days per week.

One particular photo I remember from September 2021 where the attendees of the Met Gala were unmasked and the staff were masked. This when NYC had a mask mandate.

This is when my view on Covid flipped and I feel the same about climate change now. Yes it is a real problem, but asking people to sacrifice their standard of living when we all know it won't be shared equally is just asking for and unstable society.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ma ... vant-class

Only the poor and middle class people will be asked to sacrifice their standard of living in the face of climate change and the managerial class and the very wealthy aren't going to have to do as much if anything. They are going to have their yachts, private jets, private security, they will still eat steak and drive whatever they want to etc.. To ask for shared sacrifice optics matter probably more than anything else and we can see what has happened in the past 3 years to see that humans are very good hypocrites.

There is another photo (it was an editorial) of AOC and other of masked kids down the street at school. I can't find that one but again its hypocrisy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It’s not generational, no one of all generations are going to sacrifice their lifestyles. Africa, China and India aren’t playing along, beyond lip service, because their governments aren’t about to tell their citizens “suck it up, you’re not living like the developed world”. Look at population growth, economic growth, growth in electricity usage and tell me we’re really going back to pre-industrial levels of carbon. It’s a very small percentage of the world that is really going to put skin in the game for climate change.

100% correct, going back to a pre-industrial standard of living will kill more people than climate change ever will. It is in fact a slow problem that we can get ahead of if people actually want to solve it.
Technology and innovation will help us adapt to this. In fact I would advocate a much more free market approach to this problem, but there are still hands in the pockets from oil and gas and other industries while still important do need to take a bit of a back seat.

Millennials and Gen Z aren't much better and we are the generation that is the most into crypto and that is horrible for the environment. Also our role models are those people who fly around on private jets and literally do nothing for the improvement of the world. Ask many kids in the North America today and they want to be like the Kardashians or Andrew Tate than anyone else and want to be influencers. In a way we are worse.

I have actually been paying attention to Bjorn Lomborg and his take on climate change, he identifies that it is a problem but not an extinction level event. We need to really know the difference between the two actually is.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ge-profile

MohawkWeekend wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Real problem is not what is happening today, but what has happened in the past and the western world has given a lousy example to the rest of the world.

If you don't think the real problem is happening today , I guess the following statistics mean nothing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276 ... missions/=

World CO2 Emissions in billion metric tonnes
1962. 9.75
1972. 16.23
1982. 18.88
1992. 22.58
2002. 26.28
2012. 35.01
2022. 37.49

And it's not the western world driving this growth. Which is even more remarkable considering that the western world has served as a population relief valve for the rest of the world.

Another example of not wanting (or willing) to really understand the issue. You are showing the input, the temperature rise is the output which has “some” delay in it. Numbers you -conveniently?- don’t show.

The western world has been responsible for a large amount of CO2 emissions, especially when you look at the “per capita” numbers.

I suggest you should look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1750..2021

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Just as Africa has used cell phones in place of a wired grid, and smart phones for banking. I suspect that rural Africa will bypass national electric grids in favor of local grids. Most of Africa gets a lot of sun, and solar panels will do most of the heavy lifting in those communities. China is already selling cheapo EVs, and Africa is interested. Just as the first 100 or two (and then a few thousand) watts is the most valuable, transportation for the first 50 miles will be the most valuable when it comes to electric vehicles.

Germany does well with sun, despite being far to the north and cloudy.

Yup, anothe few years and wind and solar combined will equal German coal-fired power. BTW, if renewables are so cheap why are they so subsidized? Why are electrical rates highest where renewables are a significant source? Why are these conversions to EV bring forced by law, not voluntary?

EV are selling true, but to a demographic that’s “rich” and probably has a Escalade parked next to it.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodi ... 022-12-16/

They have local grids now in Africa, it’s called a diesel generator.

marcelh wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

marcelh wrote:

Real problem is not what is happening today, but what has happened in the past and the western world has given a lousy example to the rest of the world.

If you don't think the real problem is happening today , I guess the following statistics mean nothing. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276 ... missions/=

World CO2 Emissions in billion metric tonnes
1962. 9.75
1972. 16.23
1982. 18.88
1992. 22.58
2002. 26.28
2012. 35.01
2022. 37.49

And it's not the western world driving this growth. Which is even more remarkable considering that the western world has served as a population relief valve for the rest of the world.

Another example of not wanting (or willing) to really understand the issue. You are showing the input, the temperature rise is the output which has “some” delay in it. Numbers you -conveniently?- don’t show.

The western world has been responsible for a large amount of CO2 emissions, especially when you look at the “per capita” numbers.

I suggest you should look at https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1750..2021

Really - how do you know what I understand or want to understand? I simply presented facts on CO2 emission growth by picking one year every decade. Show us scientific proof that the current increases in temperature are related to 1980 emissions in the West and not Chinese emissions in 2010. I'm willing to learn.

And per capita impact has to be balanced by the vast environmental damage cause by the burgeoning third world population.

Yup - besides all the direct and indirect subsidies to FF (including cleaning up after them) far outpacing REs, and that is not counting the several trillions to fight in the Mideast, which was done almost solely as a result of defending access to their petroleum.

marcelh wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

A few Billion people less on this planet would definitely help…

I always hear a lot of people complaining that there are too many humans on the planet, but I have yet to hear from one of the complainers to go through with it and start with themselves. Otherwise we could raise taxes by 10% for everyone and educate and bring wealth to places that need kids as a "retirement fund" but as both will not happen touting "overpopulation" is just populism.

FluidFlow wrote:

marcelh wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

A few Billion people less on this planet would definitely help…

I always hear a lot of people complaining that there are too many humans on the planet, but I have yet to hear from one of the complainers to go through with it and start with themselves. Otherwise we could raise taxes by 10% for everyone and educate and bring wealth to places that need kids as a "retirement fund" but as both will not happen touting "overpopulation" is just populism.

I don’t have children.

marcelh wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

marcelh wrote:

A few Billion people less on this planet would definitely help…

I always hear a lot of people complaining that there are too many humans on the planet, but I have yet to hear from one of the complainers to go through with it and start with themselves. Otherwise we could raise taxes by 10% for everyone and educate and bring wealth to places that need kids as a "retirement fund" but as both will not happen touting "overpopulation" is just populism.

I don’t have children.

That does not reduce population though, just reduces the increase. If you want less people you have to remove yourself. Do not forget, depending on your age you will contribute for a long time to come.

I for myself truly believe the earth can support up to 10bn people, but we have to change our behaviour and especially get away from the us and them thinking. Earth is huge and what limits us in becoming sustainable is our small scale thinking and the general concept of nations, nationalities and all the other crap that only exists to divide the sole truth: We are all human and there is one earth for all of us. But to keep us shackled to a few, earth was divided into artificial pieces. Instead of looking after earth all we do is fight: vegans v meat eaters, black v white, left v right. It does not help us, only the ones that are in charge.

FluidFlow wrote:

marcelh wrote:

FluidFlow wrote:

I always hear a lot of people complaining that there are too many humans on the planet, but I have yet to hear from one of the complainers to go through with it and start with themselves. Otherwise we could raise taxes by 10% for everyone and educate and bring wealth to places that need kids as a "retirement fund" but as both will not happen touting "overpopulation" is just populism.

I don’t have children.

That does not reduce population though, just reduces the increase. If you want less people you have to remove yourself. Do not forget, depending on your age you will contribute for a long time to come.

Nice try, but reducing is the necessary first step.

I for myself truly believe the earth can support up to 10bn people, but we have to change our behaviour and especially get away from the us and them thinking. Earth is huge and what limits us in becoming sustainable is our small scale thinking and the general concept of nations, nationalities and all the other crap that only exists to divide the sole truth: We are all human and there is one earth for all of us. But to keep us shackled to a few, earth was divided into artificial pieces. Instead of looking after earth all we do is fight: vegans v meat eaters, black v white, left v right. It does not help us, only the ones that are in charge.

I really do like your point of view, but you also know it’s naive to think people can change. Instead of acknowledging the inconvenient truth, people are ignoring facts and try to blame someone else. Maybe we should do nothing when the next pandemic arrives. Let nature do it’s job and may the fittest survive.

I was in 9th grade at the advent of climate "awareness". My classmates and I were eager to "save the world" and walked to school on the first Earth Day in 1970 (even though the busses still drove their routes that day, some of them empty. But, hey, we felt good because we were still doing something for Mother Earth, even though it accomplished nothing.) At that time, "experts" scared us into thinking that global cooling was going to kill us all within 10 years if we didn't act urgently, and it was suggested by some that we send aircraft over the north pole and drop chemicals that would cause the ice cap there to melt, and therefore stop the lowering temperatures. Fast forward 10 years and when we didn't die from global cooling we were told that we would now die from global warming if we didn't act urgently. Fast forward another 10 years and when temperatures rose and fell during that time despite all our efforts to stop the cooling and warming and the previous theories of why temperature rose and fell were all questioned, it was decided to just call it climate change, because, obviously, how we all lived our lives was destroying the earth, be it by temperature cooling or warming. A study of geology of the area tells us that the whole of North America was, at one time, covered in ice, which over time melted. That's how the Great Lakes were formed, among other things. My question is (since the experts of today claim that humankind has caused and can control the earth's climate), how could that drastic a change in the earth's temperature millions of years ago, when humans did not inhabit this planet, (and any minute change happening today for that matter) not be attributed to anything but a naturally-occurring change in a climate cycle?? And, if it was happening today and we listened to the "experts", what would they be suggesting we do to stop it?? Would North America be a better place to live??

marcelh wrote:

ArchGuy1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Yes. Exactly. And many people have been screaming about this. But, the only thing we can do is think and pray and put more carbon in the atmosphere because nothing else works, for some reason.

So, how can we actually make progress in the right direction?

A few Billion people less on this planet would definitely help…

Lead from the front…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

PennPal wrote:

I was in 9th grade at the advent of climate "awareness". My classmates and I were eager to "save the world" and walked to school on the first Earth Day in 1970 (even though the busses still drove their routes that day, some of them empty. But, hey, we felt good because we were still doing something for Mother Earth, even though it accomplished nothing.) At that time, "experts" scared us into thinking that global cooling was going to kill us all within 10 years if we didn't act urgently, and it was suggested by some that we send aircraft over the north pole and drop chemicals that would cause the ice cap there to melt, and therefore stop the lowering temperatures. Fast forward 10 years and when we didn't die from global cooling we were told that we would now die from global warming if we didn't act urgently. Fast forward another 10 years and when temperatures rose and fell during that time despite all our efforts to stop the cooling and warming and the previous theories of why temperature rose and fell were all questioned, it was decided to just call it climate change, because, obviously, how we all lived our lives was destroying the earth, be it by temperature cooling or warming. A study of geology of the area tells us that the whole of North America was, at one time, covered in ice, which over time melted. That's how the Great Lakes were formed, among other things. My question is (since the experts of today claim that humankind has caused and can control the earth's climate), how could that drastic a change in the earth's temperature millions of years ago, when humans did not inhabit this planet, (and any minute change happening today for that matter) not be attributed to anything but a naturally-occurring change in a climate cycle?? And, if it was happening today and we listened to the "experts", what would they be suggesting we do to stop it?? Would North America be a better place to live??

This is where the media and fear mongering really fails the people. The fact that George Carlin could communicate climate change better than any expert is telling. We have no capacity to destroy this planet, it will kill us long before we kill it. I don't know where we get this arrogance (well I do, religion and the book of Genesis saying we have dominion over the planet) but even if we were to cause an Extinction Level Event we wouldn't wipe out all life on Earth. Something else will evolve and take over like mammals did after the dinosaurs were wiped out 66 million years ago.

Even if every Nuclear Weapon went off all at once. A VEI 8 eruption (would rival all the nukes one planet by several margins) has happened in early human history and we survived that. The Lake Toba eruption about 74,000 years ago created a genetic bottleneck that many evolutionary scientists think might have made begin to thrive as a species.

It might kill us but life will recover and thrive again. We know this because its happened 5 other times in history. Eventually it won't but that won't be for billions of years.

Human's don't have the ability to control the climate but we do have an influence on it. IIRC we should actually be in a period of stable temperature and even a slight global cooling trend based on the current axial tilt and earth's orbit. This is without the human factor. Our risk is unpredictable weather and sea level rise that might mean mass migrations, the destruction of cities and the deaths of a lot of people but there are places that might benefit as well. None of these things are fun but natural forces can cause the same thing and has in the past.

As for the last ice age the glaciation did not encompass the whole continent it went as south as Missouri. The next one is due in 50,000 years IIRC.

In terms of natural climate there are Milankovitch cycles that are used to predict ice ages and these factor in two major factors. The eccentricity of earth's orbit which is an ellipse, the flatter that ellipse the more extreme the seasonal variation and the axial tilt which is 23.44 degrees and decreasing however this ranges from 22.1 to 24.5. When the tilt is smaller and the planet is closer to the sun in the northern winter (it is now but its very small). The more moderate the tilt will actually create the ice age as the milder summer will not melt the snow each year and it builds up. The more extreme tilt will have a more intense summer and winter but those glaciers and snow will melt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

This is the natural explanation.

What we have been doing has been accelerating the trend towards warming with the increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which the planet is responding to with more extreme whether events. However one specific event cannot be linked to climate change but a trend can.

WRT Africa, a looming debt crisis. 96% of domestic govt revenue goes to debt service. They need cheap, not expensive energy. Might be paywall.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-a ... ebt-crisis

Imported petroleum is not cheap energy.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

WRT Africa, a looming debt crisis. 96% of domestic govt revenue goes to debt service. They need cheap, not expensive energy. Might be paywall.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-a ... ebt-crisis

For wind and solar, the initial cost is large, but the ROI is much better than petroleum.

marcelh wrote :
Nice try, but reducing is the necessary first step.

Good to know that reduction must be the first step. I hope that you lead by example and come first as the savior of the world. Thanks in advance! Who or what decides who is first, second or whatever class human should die? None of us have the right to judge obout this!!!

1960's --- Oil gone in 10 years
1970's --- Another ice age in 10 years
1980's --- Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
1990's --- The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years
2000's --- Ice caps will be gone in 10 years.

None happened. But all resulted in more taxes. Half the country believes if you give up your gas stove , your car, and eat bugs because people who fly private jets told you to , it will make the weather better. George Carlin had it right all along .

stratosphere wrote:

1960's --- Oil gone in 10 years
1970's --- Another ice age in 10 years
1980's --- Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
1990's --- The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years
2000's --- Ice caps will be gone in 10 years.

None happened. But all resulted in more taxes. Half the country believes if you give up your gas stove , your car, and eat bugs because people who fly private jets told you to , it will make the weather better. George Carlin had it right all along .

The only one of those that is remotely true was the ozone one and in that case multiple countries aligned and regulated the use of cfcs to such an extent that the problem basically went away. What point are you trying to make because what you say isn’t marrying up with the examples you give?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stratosphere wrote:

1960's --- Oil gone in 10 years
1970's --- Another ice age in 10 years
1980's --- Acid rain will destroy all crops in 10 years
1990's --- The ozone layer will be gone in 10 years
2000's --- Ice caps will be gone in 10 years.

None happened. But all resulted in more taxes. Half the country believes if you give up your gas stove , your car, and eat bugs because people who fly private jets told you to , it will make the weather better. George Carlin had it right all along .

The only one of those that is remotely true was the ozone one and in that case multiple countries aligned and regulated the use of cfcs to such an extent that the problem basically went away. What point are you trying to make because what you say isn’t marrying up with the examples you give?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk