Climate Questions: What's going on with climate change? | AP News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Addressing climate change — a now ubiquitous term for the warming of the planet caused by humans emitting carbon dioxide and methane from coal, oil and natural gas into the atmosphere — is becoming exponentially more pressing, with the language of scientists, officials and activists becoming more serious with every passing year.
The most recent report by the world's top body of climate scientists gave a damning assessment of where the world is headed if more isn't done to curb global warming. Already, more extreme weather events are happening across the globe, from longer, more intense and more frequent droughts and heat waves to devastating floods and wetter hurricanes, attributed at least in part to climate change.
How the planet got here, the current and future effects of climate change, and what to do next, are all questions that experts have been researching for decades.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE: This story is part of an ongoing series answering some of the most fundamental questions around climate change, the science behind it, the effects of a warming planet and how the world is addressing it.
___
There may be an uptick in climate-related policy, discussions and activism, but the science isn't all that new.
Scientists in the early 1800s began to recognize that some gasses and water vapor could trap heat in the atmosphere. And for the last sixty years, researchers could definitively measure that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were rising, thanks to a CO2-monitoring station at Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
Meteorologists in the middle of the twentieth century also started to understand the climate as a "system that is dynamic, constantly changing, and perhaps also vulnerable to external forcing and alteration," said Martin Mahony, a lecturer of human geography at the University of East Anglia who studies the history of climate science and its interactions with politics.
Add to that the knowledge that CO2 levels were going up and scientists started realizing that this could be a major issue.
"In the 1960s, you start getting conferences and workshops on 'the CO2 problem' ... bringing meteorologists together with the geophysicists and other folks to think through the implications of this in very abstract, theoretical terms," Mahony said.
But it wasn't long before this theoretical puzzle became a serious concern.
By the late eighties, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to assess how much the climate is warming and if humans have anything to do with it.
Ever since its first report in 1990, the link between fossil fuels and global warming was clear. Coal, oil and natural gas for electricity, heating, transport, industries like steel and cement-making, and the gasses from agriculture and refrigerants, are burning up the planet.
Scientists say that average global temperatures have gone up by around 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the middle of the nineteenth century, causing hotter temperature extremes, rising seas and weather disasters, with experts warning that more catastrophic climate events are on the way as the world warms up further.
"It's not just going to be heatwaves, drought, wildfires and hurricanes. It's going to be water resources, it's going to be food supplies ... it's going to be national security concerns that are going to be more apparent than they are right now," said Brown University climate scientist Kim Cobb.
Those living in the least developed nations or in poorer communities are often the most vulnerable to climate change. Many have called for rich, high-polluting countries, like the U.S. and much of Europe, to pay their share so that developing countries are more resilient to weather extremes and can curb their use of fossil fuels. Known as "loss and damage" in climate negotiations, it's an area that nations have struggled to agree on in recent years.
In a somewhat rare moment of agreement between rich nations and more climate-vulnerable, low-emitting ones, countries at the U.N.'s annual climate conference in Paris in 2015 did agree to limit warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, with the aim of capping the average global temperature rise to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit).
Alternatives to fossil fuels, like solar and wind energy, need to be scaled up dramatically if the Paris climate goals are to be met, experts say. Newer technologies, like carbon capture or green hydrogen, which are currently too expensive, untested at scale or both, will also have to be deployed to limit warming. Changes in people's personal lives can also make a difference, although the large reductions come from government policies and choices made by giant corporations, rather than individuals.
Although some effects of global warming are locked in, many scientists believe that curbing warming to just a few more tenths of a degree is achievable, but only if drastic action is taken very quickly.
___
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP's climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
"but only if drastic action is taken very quickly."
What actions? Fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon, and neither are cows.
What actions?
Boston college has developed a coronavirus that is 80% lethal.
I think that was Boston University, which is a bit different. Let me give a thumbs down to BU ...and this seed!
Good night.
Thanks to many years of fossil fuel industry funded AGW denier groups and many years of strident, ignorant, right wing science deniers, it might just actually be too late to do anything about anthropogenic global warming.
Since I am in my late 60s, I'm almost glad that I won't live long enough to experience the worst end-game aspects of mankind's suicidal race to global environmental destruction.
While earning a college degree in environmental science I naively thought that I could actually make a difference and help slow, if not stop, what now seems to be inevitable. Unfortunately, greed, indifference and time are not in my power to change.
The US is one of the world's most efficient countries in developing fossil fuels prior to Biden becoming POTUS.
Now much of the world is reliant on less efficient countries to develop much of those same fossil fuels.
Doesn't it make sense to use US produced fuels instead of less efficient countries fuel production while working to develop alternate energy options?
Yes it does make sense to use US produced fuels. It makes great sense, for example, for us to use natural gas since we have an abundance. But the problem with natural gas is similar to the use of domestic sweet crude — our infrastructure. We would need to invest countless billions to convert our infrastructure to make use of domestic sweet crude so that we can totally be free of sour crude that we must import.
Biden did not set up our national infrastructure based on sour crude, that was in place many decades prior to Biden even being a politician. The US used imported sour crude because the cost (especially the lifting costs) for securing our domestic sweet crude is typically higher than importing sour crude. So now we have our refining capabilities tied to sour crude that must be imported and unable to refine the sweet crude that we have domestically.
Blaming everything on Biden (or on any PotUS) is naïve. A PotUS just does not have the power (or the time) to effect that for which they routinely get blamed / credited. Further, reality is far more complex than people presume; rarely do we find: 'do this and all will be well'. It is convenient to point to a political leader on 'the other side' and blame them but it is irrational and naïve to do so.
So while the Biden admin has made it harder and harder for the US to remain free from relying on other countries for oil imports and now is begging them to increase production, are you really saying he has no responsibility?
Looks like what I just explained went right over your head. Did you not catch the critical point of sour crude vs sweet crude?
Biden is responsible for negotiating deals that improve the USA. Note also that Biden cannot make OPEC lower their prices / increase their production ... he must persuade them to do so, but they make the call.
If he is able to secure a good deal then he gets credit, if not, he gets blame. That is all fair game; the job of PotUS is difficult.
The problem is that you et. al. leap to the extreme at every turn: everything is Biden's fault. The irrationality of such a position is offensive to the intellect.
Sour and crude was not a problem during the Trump admin when we were an exporter and not an importer of fossil fuels.
"Biden is responsible for negotiating deals that improve the USA"
What deals has he negotiated that have done that.
It seems you think by hindering oil, coal and gas production he has done that.
Your blind support of Biden's failures rather than admitting he is to blame for some of them is a typical deflection of you et. al.
Dennis, good grief, our sour crude infrastructure has been in place since the 1950s.
What?? You need to start reading what I write instead of inventing nonsense from thin air based on a half-baked stereotype.
Again, you are just making allegations instead of reading. My noting that you (irrationally) blame Biden for everything is perverted in your mind into me having blind support of Biden's failures. Did it completely miss your attention that I stated that it is a failure of Biden to not secure favorable terms for sour crude? Maybe I confused you by noting how that is not an easy task but surely you saw where I stated that it is nonetheless Biden's responsibility.
Nonsense, the US has been an importer of oil every year since 2000.
.
The US is the largest producer of oil in the world.
.
The US was a net exporter of oil in 2020 and 2021 and will be again in 2022.
.
There are over 9,000 active leases that are not being used.
New Data: Biden’s First Year Drilling Permitting Stomps Trump’s By 34%
[deleted]
The US was a net exporter of oil in 2020 and 2021 and will be again in 2022 and the price to US consumers went up dramatically under Biden.
Approving permits and threatening to end oil and gas makes no snese.
Why would corporations invest billions when it takes years to gear up to bring to market for short term instead of long term when they can recoup their investments.
Your comment is, as usual, thoughtful and on point. Naturally, the one you accurately and appropriately took to task can't stand being schooled and needs to resort to a nonsensical attempt at an insult.
Another who invents positions for people and ignores what they write.
Ignoring what someone writes is different than blindly believing what they write.
I am sure everyone here thanks you for that helpful insight.
I said nothing about everyone.
Don't trust the Biden administration to state anything truthful. They are still looking to redefine the word "recession"; and won't even admit to the words "inflation" or "crisis" being real.
Maybe he should tell his leftist eco terrorists to drop their lawsuits?
Biden also is fighting leasing on federal lands tooth and nail. It won't affect him; but it will affect the next president- who will have to deal with the production shortfalls. As well as the loss of income to the federal government on leasing and drilling permits.
Of course Biden doesn't listen to courts anyways; and new leasing of federal land is at an all time low since WWII.
We have heard it all before. Biden doesn't control the oil and gas companies. He can't force them to produce. But he can put obstacles in their way to make sure their production isn't sufficient to meet demands. Now, or in the future.
Biden and the Democrats said they were going to get rid of gas and oil. Those companies are taking them at their word; and by their actions.
Who are "the world's top body of climate scientists?"
The article doesn't say.
Are they on government payrolls. Who are they?
I cannot speak for the author, but here is a starting point for someone trying to answer that question:
Can you show us where those scientists "gave a damning assessment of where the world is headed if more isn't done to curb global warming?"
Denying reality isn't helpful.
Where are the electric cars that we are all supposed to be driving?
Where is the grid to support them?
As I stated, I do not know the source for the author, but it is very easy to consistently find the fact that our planet's temperature has risen 1.1°C in the past 100 years and is on track to hit the net 1.5°C mark in 20 years and 2°C mark by 2050. The effects of this warming are extreme weather patterns (droughts and floods), acidification of the ocean, rise of the ocean level, and then the consequence of these changes on life.
The thing we need to keep in mind is that our planet (our greater environment) is based on an equilibrium and it does not take much to cause ripple effects which to human beings and other forms of life could be devastating. Just consider the ripple effects of the pandemic to see how easily our environment (and our lives) can be affected.
But I encourage everyone who is curious about why someone would make a statement like the one you quoted to do original research. Nobody who listens to talking heads and holds a view that AGW or even GW is a hoax or that the planet will just make it all better will be influenced by posts on a social media forum. One needs to seriously and objectively learn what science has found, what data is used, how the data is acquired and importantly why climate scientists issue warnings.
The materials are plentiful, one need only the will to learn and consider.
What are you asking? Are you asking why everyone does not have an EV?
It is in its infancy. You know this, right? Why do you ask this question?
meh, the same group was claiming cell phones were a passing fad 30+ years ago.
Because Joe Biden is trying to flip the switch that is 30 years away.
Here are the people behind him:
Non sequitur.
Biden's goal is for 2030 to have 50% of all new vehicles sold in the USA be electric. Is this what you mean by 'flipping a switch'?
Do you think that we will see more EVs and infrastructure if there is no goal ... no challenge?
Don't worry too much about this Vic, when the GoP gets its turn it will do what it can to halt progress in this area.
Apparently the situation is not sufficiently dire to begin efforts at conservation. The world certainly isn't consuming less energy which, supposedly, is the culprit.
Climate politics has become nothing more than excuses and justifications to spend more money. Politicians are using climate mitigation the same way they have used the defense budget. It's a political way to 'bring home the bacon'. The science may be sound but the politics is pure hoax.
Based upon the science, climate change is a problem that will solve itself. Nature doesn't care about humans and will establish its own balance. Nature doesn't have to live with humans. But humans have to live with nature. That's definitely a one-sided relationship and no amount of hand waving excuses will change that relationship.
True. If we wait a few centuries without compounding the problem, nature will eventually correct the ill effects.
Why will it require centuries? We're told humans cause climate change. And the changing climate will remove that cause. Removing the cause will eliminate the effect. Nature doesn't care about the survival of humans.
The problem of climate change can resolve itself in a matter of decades or less.
Nature works very slowly relative to human perception of time, Nerm. Do you also ask why tectonic plates move so slowly?
Over time.
Deliver the science you think backs this utter nonsense. Do you presume that we go net zero tomorrow or do you presume that we make no change in our contribution to global warming? State your presumption and then deliver the science. Good luck.
What is our contribution?
Our contribution (as I used the term) is primarily our release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
That should have been self-evident.
I suspect you will still not answer my question:
Uh, you didn't ask me that question.....
I was looking for facts and figures , the US percentages of global "contributions", how we compare to other countries, etc.
Then get on Google and look it up. The facts are at your fingertips ... very easy to get.
Why are you asking me to provide US percentages? Are you under the impression that I think our climate problem is merely the result of the USA?
Note, when you do your research, look also at the per-capita contribution, not just the per-nation contribution. The two metrics have very different results.
Yes. I have done the research. The good thing about doing the research yourself instead of simply asking a poster on a social media forum is that you must read the context and actually work to understand what truly is going on.
Since these facts are very easily obtained, I encourage Greg, et. al. to just Google them and gain a clear understanding of reality.
A billion snow crabs disappeared in two years. Wildfires are changing the landscape in a matter of weeks. Floods and hurricanes have wiped human settlements off the map in a day. And we're told climate change is a major contributing factor. Nature, it seems, really can do it's thing on a very short timescale.
A pandemic can wipe out half the human population in a handful of years. We know because that has happened before.
Net zero carbon accounting is based upon the environment extracting carbon from the atmosphere. Climate scientists claim that natural carbon sinks are a significant solution to the problem of climate change. Natural processes are removing a large portion of human carbon emissions from the atmosphere at present. A lot of the recommendations being made are to reduce carbon emissions to a level that does not overwhelm natural carbon sinks. The recommended actions to mitigate climate change really are based upon net zero carbon accounting that depends upon achieving a balance between human emissions and natural processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere.
So, a collapse of modern human lifestyles would allow those natural processes to remove carbon from the atmosphere in a much shorter amount of time than the dire prognostications are suggesting. That doesn't even require shrinking the human population. The only thing required would be an event that drastically changes human behavior.
A natural event could bring our modern lifestyles to a screeching halt. So can a number of man-made events. And a collapse of our modern lifestyles would allow the climate to recover in less than a human lifetime. Removing human interference will allow natural carbon sinks to reestablish a natural equilibrium and regulate the climate.
But it does not move quickly when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases. Natural forces operate at different rates. You get that, right? It takes a very long time for stars to burn out but it takes very little time for microorganisms to produce the next generation. Lots of differences.
Show me the science Nerm. I have little patience for bullshit. The science tells us that it takes centuries to for this to occur. So even if we move to net-zero emissions there is no quick natural process solution. What we seek is to reduce the compounding effect and thus reduce the severity of the consequences.
The planet will be fine, but given we do not live for centuries, we will not do as well.
Here's the science:
Note the accounting is based upon carbon and not carbon dioxide. There have been several similar graphics produced by NOAA, NASA, and other institutions. From this specific graphic, natural carbon sinks are removing 56 pct of human carbon emissions. Reducing human carbon emissions by 44 pct would achieve net zero carbon emissions.
If we reduce carbon emissions by 56 pct (instead of 44 pct) then the natural sinks will be removing 1 gigaton of carbon (or 3.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide) per year. In 70 years the natural sinks would remove 70 gigatons of carbon (or 256 gigatons of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere. And from the graphic, removing 70 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere (over 70 years) would lower atmospheric concentrations by a little less than 9 pct. That would reduce carbon dioxide concentrations from 400 ppm to 365 ppm which is well below the level to stop planetary warming. If we achieve the political goal of absolute zero emissions instead of net zero emissions then multiply those numbers by five. Eliminating human carbon emissions would lower atmospheric concentrations from 400 ppm to 225 ppm in 70 years or one human lifetime.
There have been a number of studies conducted and published suggesting that climate recovery will require thousands of years. But those studies are based upon paleoclimate reconstructions where the atmospheric carbon increases were the result of natural processes. The mechanism for both carbon increase and removal were not artificial as with human emissions. Paleoclimatic reconstructions do not accurately model anthropogenic emissions.
So, the science really does indicate that reduction or elimination of human carbon emissions will allow the climate to recover quickly compared to what the paleoclimate reconstructions indicate.
We are currently at 440 ppm (937.2 GtC). (One ppm of CO2 = 2.13 GtC.) What is considered safe is 350ppm (745.5 GtC). Let's assume that we somehow immediately reduce our emissions to 56% of our current level as you suggest. That would put us at a net zero emission situation. With that assumption we need to rid our atmosphere of the existing excess of 191.7 GtC (937.2 - 745.5) to get to the safe level of 350ppm.
To rid ourselves of this excess C, we need to further reduce our emissions (or find some means to accelerate the natural process). Let's say we are modest and attempt to go from net zero to net -1GtC per year. That means we have to reduce our emissions to 44.4% of where they are today. Let's now add that to our assumptions.
With the current assumptions the natural cycle will remove 1GtC per year from the atmosphere. Given we have an excess of 191.7 GtC (the amount above the safe level of 350ppm) it will take a little over 191 years for this to happen.
So we have a plan, Nerm. We immediately cut our emissions globally to 44.4% of where we are, hold steady, and wait 191 years to get to the safe level of 350ppm.
Of course, our plan will not be followed. So instead of net -1GtC/year we will continue to pump net +4GtC/year. If lucky, maybe a little less, if not we will keep piling on.
Even your estimates show that it would require 191 years and not thousands of years. And you are using an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is considerably higher than is being reported. Using your numbers confirms the climate will recover fairly quickly.
We've already transitioned 14 pct of our electricity generation to alternatives. So don't pretend we aren't doing anything. The question is how much that transition has lowered our emissions.
I seeded an article not long ago that showed emissions from electricity generation has dropped 1 pct after converting 14 pct of generating capacity to alternatives. That article indicated that our electricity consumption increased 4 pct as we were adding solar and wind generation. Obviously we are not conserving electricity as we make the transition away from fossil fuels. We are increasing consumption of electricity as we add solar and wind generation.
Continuing to increase consumption means solar and wind will only be an addition to our energy supply and not a replacement for current energy supplies. We may hold fossil fuel consumption at present levels but alternative sources will be supplying increased demand. That's why conservation is a key component for addressing climate change. If we don't utilize conservation measures then we aren't going to accomplish what is expected or promised.
So, let's go down the path of idle speculation and brainstorm some ideas about how climate change will correct itself. The first speculation is that beach tourism will go away. Rising sea levels means there won't be beaches. As shorelines become inundated, rotting vegetation and nutrients from previously dry land will spawn plankton blooms. The coasts are probably going to smell pretty bad and that's not going to attract tourism or coastal development. Climate change will force a widespread behavior change.
I stated that it would take centuries. So under the best possible assumptions it takes 191 years. The slow Carbon cycle (which takes Carbon back within the planet) takes thousands of years. We have focused on the fast cycle.
Where am I 'pretending' we are not doing anything? You do understand the difference between achieving net-zero and doing something, right?
So, in summary, under the best conditions (and these cannot possibly be achieved for decades) we are in an over saturation of atmospheric CO2 for a couple of centuries. Right?
I thought the current goal was 50 pct reduction from peak emissions by 2035. That's net zero by 2035. And US emissions have been declining. The share of emissions by transportation, electricity generation, and industry have been declining.
So, in summary, you are correct it will require decades. Not centuries. And certainly not thousands of years. The changing climate will force human behavior changes that will contribute to reductions, too.
Basically the plan is to eliminate coal use and cut oil and natural gas consumption in half. Definitely not an end to fossil fuels. Our consumption of fossil fuels will likely be dialed back to what it was in the 1970s or 1980s. But the institutional plan is to accomplish those reductions without utilizing conservation measures. Conservation receives little attention in institutional policy making. And without conservation, achieving the set goals is going to require a lot more money. Conservation is being avoided because conservation requires spending less money.
Nerm, I showed that it will take centuries (at least two), (but not millenniums) before nature alone (assuming we are net-zero) can take the CURRENT levels of CO2 (440 ppm) back down to a safe level (350 ppm) via the fast carbon cycle. It takes hundreds of millions of years for the planet to bury carbon back into the soil and rock via the slow carbon cycle and thus we have not considered this in our analysis.
And I showed that nature, alone, is capable of returning carbon dioxide levels to near pre-industrial concentrations in less than a century. The data from the graphic I provided shows that nature, alone, is capable of removing 5 gigatons of carbon (18 gigatons of carbon dioxide) per year. And that could be increased if humans weren't damaging the carbon sinks. My estimates show that nature is quite capable of correcting the climate in one human lifetime.
The current concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is being reported as 415 ppm; not 440 ppm. You've also selected a safe level of 350 ppm which is much lower that the level I indicated in my comment. So, you've padded the numbers to make the scenario appear worse. And you've topped a scenario made worse by changing the numbers with a cynical outlook for what humans will do.
If everyone reduced their energy consumption by 20 pct, we would surpass what has been accomplished by the current level of conversion to solar and wind generation. Reducing energy consumption by 20 pct wouldn't even force people to go back to a 1940s lifestyle. And reducing energy consumption would not cost anything; in fact, everyone would be spending less money. That's why institutional policy making has paid no attention to conservation measures.
Good grief man, I refuted your claim.
It does no such thing. For that to happen we would have to have absolute zero emissions (not net-zero). We have to go to 44% of our current emissions for nature to remove 1GtC / year.
350 ppm is what is reported consistently as the safe level so that is what I used (rather than Nerm's 'feeling'). And if we use 415 ppm as the current, the math still works out to centuries (1.4) rather than decades.
Cynical?? My scenario presumes that we go to net-zero emissions immediately! Immediately cutting our emissions globally to 44.4% of where we are and never increase is not cynical, it is wildly optimistic.
Bottom line, you are using a confused rate of 5GtC / year removed by nature to entirely skew reality. You are assuming that we stop ALL emissions (gross-zero), not simply achieve net-zero.
Let's stick with what we are discussing.
What I'm discussing is conservation and the failure of institutional policy making to incorporate conservation measures into efforts to mitigate climate change. That was my opening comment on this thread @2.
Consume less and pollute less is not a difficult concept. The logic is straightforward. So, why aren't policy makers utilizing that logic? The argument is that humans are consuming such large quantities of fossil fuels that the consumptive behavior is changing the planet's climate. The proposed solutions are to replace fossil fuels without addressing the consumptive behavior.
The climate is not being affected by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been in the natural environment for hundreds of millions of years. What is causing the climate to change is how humans are utilizing and exploiting fossil fuels. Ignoring that human behavior is an irrational approach to addressing the problem.
Then feel free to discuss this with someone else. I am in favor of conservation but that is not what we were discussing.
So find someone who disagrees with you on conservation and have at it.
What is this bullshit? This implies my argument ignores human behavior when I have clearly argued the opposite. What a slimy tactic.
The problem is naysayers. If you have political objections one can rally countless millions to believe AGW is a hoax. If a large portion of the electorate truly believes that AGW is a big hoax, their politicians will not take action.
I was just at a wedding speaking with a very conservative family member (who constantly listens to conservative talk radio). He offered all the classical naysayer comments and even declared that there is not even global warming. That scientists have no accurate way to gauge the net temperature of the planet. He actually believes there is a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists to falsely claim AGW in order to force a political Green movement.
There is no reasoning with people who operate this way. Might as well be talking to a flat Earther since the basic argument style is the same.
Naysayers? Really? You know, before the 1800s humans relied on alternative energy. Biofuels, hydropower, wind energy, solar energy, and animal/human power were the only energy sources available. The major shift in human use of energy during the industrial revolution was ownership of energy sources. The industrial revolution made energy a commodity.
Coal, oil, and natural gas are just as free as are the sun and wind. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not man-made energy sources. The development and use of fossil fuels was driven by profit obtained from exploitation of something that was freely available. Those who owned energy sources became wealthy. And that profit model of energy ownership is what the politics of climate change is protecting.
The problem is not naysayers. The root problem is an arbitrary requirement that energy be a commodity that can be exploited for profit. The politics of climate change is all about the money and not about the environment. And that's why the politics of climate change will disparage, inhibit, and obstruct any efforts at conservation. There isn't any profit in using less energy. The more energy that is produced, by any means, will encourage increased consumption to obtain more profit.
The politics of climate change is a hoax. Government action on climate change is not about the environment. The environment is only an excuse to seek more profit. Even climate scientists are cashing in on the political hoax because those scientists refuse to consider conservation efforts. Climate scientists are hawking an alternative energy source as a commodity that can be exploited for profit. Climate scientists restrict their warnings and remedies to multinational producers of energy while giving short shrift to consumption of that energy. Climate scientists are focusing attention on profit centers and are attempting to favor a different profit center. Climate scientists only consider energy as a commodity that can be owned and exploited for profit. Climate science is being drawn to the money like moths to a flame.
If we were really serious about mitigating climate change then we would give more attention to how people lived 200 years ago or, even, 100 years ago. Those people did not rely on fossil fuels because fossil fuels weren't widely available. The patent archives are full of devices that do not require fossil fuels. In the case of climate change, repeating our history is what is needed.
Great plan, Nerm, let's all adopt an Amish lifestyle. Always a pleasure hearing practical, well-conceived ideas.
Is an Amish lifestyle causing climate change? Did the American Indian lifestyle cause climate change? Are subsistence lifestyles in Africa causing climate change? Are the nomads in the Middle East causing climate change? Is the Nepalese lifestyle causing climate change?
Many of those cultures preceded the use of fossil fuels and those cultures are still here.
It really does appear that exploitation for profit contributes far, far more to climate change than does subsistence lifestyles. Don't disparage those who are not the problem to validate your own lifestyle.
The problem is bigger than that. Recall how most folks here at NT were greatly upset when OPEC+ announced a reduction next month in the daily production of oil.
What does he think thermometers do?
He says that temperature technology has varied over time and that there is no way to gain an accurate net temperature.
This is one of the classic lines fed on conservative radio. There is no reasoning with people who learn science from talking heads.
O.M.G.
I know a few engineers who would like to have a discussion with him
Maybe, if they have a lot of patience. Conservative media channels have 'answers' for everything to feed to their listeners. So when one mentions ice-cores they ignorantly scoff that ice can tell us the temperature of the planet back millions of years. No understanding of the chemistry involved, just refusal to even consider the science out of stubborn ignorance.
Might as well attempt to reason with a flat-Earther.
I'd rather not. I have a short fuse and in some cases a short attention span
Right. Sure. It's about people's feelings.
The economics and time constraints have nothing to do with it.
I'd recommend a 12 gauge semi-auto...
Mr Giggles says he's getting me one
Jack, your comment reads as though it were written by someone else ... more like the average snarky, twisted comment I would expect to see from certain individuals in this forum.
Surely you understand that I made no mention or hint of feelings ... no notion of emotion. I spoke of naysayers who influence the electorate (and make more naysayers). A large segment of the electorate is simply against a move to renewables and they elect politicians who cater to this. That is how naysayers make a difference.
Who said that?? I have consistently called for an incremental, practical, sensible migration from fossil fuels towards renewables. This considers the practical realities involved in changing both infrastructure (and all dependencies on same) and societal behavior. Those who object to leaping to renewables are very different from the naysayers of which I speak who object to migrating to renewables (or translate, incorrectly, any mention of migration into a leap).
OK, then what is it you imagine motivates "naysayers"?
You said "the problem is naysayers".
This completely ignores the fact that even universal agreement on greenhouse gas emissions does not make a dent in the logistical and economic problems inherent in any significant reduction.
I started off on the internet combatting professional AGW deniers. Corporate owned think tanks spared no expense on social networks and right wing media to convince folk that
(A) AGW was a hoax invented by the commies and hippy tree huggers.
(B) that it was just natural earth fluctuations that we had no control over.
(C) that it was no big deal and the planet would be better off a lot warmer.
(D) that we would bankrupt our economy trying to fix an imaginary problem.
No amount of facts or figures would sway those whose ideology was to deny.
AGW deniers still deny and the Earth keeps warming due to greenhouse gasses.
Are you one of the few here happy that OPEC is reducing oil production?
I thought I was clear @2.2:
The climate unfortunately has become a political issue. So, those who listen and believe partisan sources will tend to adopt the positions espoused by talking heads. Those who claim things like 'there is no global warming' are not following the science but rather following talking heads.
Yes, again I have already explained this as recently @2.2.13:
If there was not a substantial political opposition we would see more support for practical, incremental migration to renewables. The economic and timing factors are constraints of reality which force practical, incremental migration.
Because of the political opposition to making moves toward renewables we see one party trying to force renewables while the other pushes fossil fuel energy. Almost like the abortion divide where the extremes screw everything up. What we should have, if people could function rationally, is a move towards renewables that incrementally moves us off fossil fuels based on practical realities (our infrastructure dependence and the need to deal with the relatively slow pace of societal change).
So, if this is still not sufficiently clear, as long as a large body of the electorate holds positions such as "there is no global warming" we will not see politicians who cater to said electorate working very hard to encourage renewables.
Well I do not ignore that fact and you should see that if you carefully read my comments. If I had been calling for an immediate move to renewables then your allegation would have merit; as it stands it has no merit.
Further I disagree with your use of 'significant'; that implies that we have no options to make any material reduction in our emissions. A fine extreme position: 'the problem is not really solvable so let's just give up and stick with fossil fuels'.
And there really is nothing you can say to people like that. They are stubbornly holding to the position of their talking heads and even showing animosity towards science.
Exactly, that animosity even killed the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
That won't make a bit of difference one way or another to AGW.
The CO2 already in the atmosphere will stay there from 300 to 1,000 yrs.
Methane remains in the atmosphere approximately 9 years.
Planet Earth is FUBAR unless we find a way to rapidly sequester GHGs.
Oh, I thought that a rapid reduction of burning oil was part of our current strategy.
OPEC reducing production won't curtail GHG production.
Are you trying to be disingenuous?
Are you looking at this scientifically or politically? It seems as though you are making a purely political calculation given you are focused on what some unspecified 'they' think.
It should not matter what 'political they' think or say; what matters is the data and the data tells us that we are well past the safe point of 350 ppm CO2 and that the CO2 saturation of our atmosphere prior to the industrial age back 800,000 years ranged between 170 ppm and 300 ppm. One must go back 2 million years to get the CO2 level we now experience.
The data also tells us that if we could get to net-zero emissions tomorrow and keep them there, it would take at least 150 years for nature to get us back to the safe level of 350 ppm (which is still substantially higher than ice-core readings going back 800,000 years).
People should be focused on how to best deal with this situation and not on blindly dismissing this as some kind of hoax because of purely partisan reasoning.
Instead of scientifically or politically, let's try historically. Prior to every Ice Age there was a sea level rise which was 20 some odd feet higher than the current sea levels we see now and as the ice sheets grew on land the sea levels dropped until there wasn't enough warm waters in the seas moving north to keep the precipitation falling and freezing on the ice sheets that the next summer couldn't melt off. In order for the next Ice Age to begin Greenland needs to lose most of it's ice sheet and so will Antarctica, not the whole thing just whatever another 20 feet of sea level will float and melt. What we are witnessing is the amazing water cycle of this planet.
Throughout our history the planet has dealt all sorts of blows. The ebb and flow (some mild, some catastrophic) are normal over a 4.5 billion year horizon.
My view of climate change is very different from say ... trying to predict the long-term viability of a stock by looking at its 10 year chart. That would be a historical look.
Rather, I would look at the fundamentals and trends in the market. That is what the scientific approach does. Science has identified GhG as our biggest concern and the root cause of observed changes in temperature, ocean acidification, glacial retreat, ocean level rise, and more extreme weather. Further, it has directly measured our concentration of GhG and in particular, CO2, and compared it to prior levels to see a) the net difference between now and pre-industrial times and b) the rate at which ppm concentrations are growing.
We know how the carbon cycle works, we know the core problem, we know the sources of the problem, we can see where this is heading and we have ideas on how to stop the damage (and let the natural equilibrium processes of the carbon cycle do their work ... about 150 years or so).
But, to your point, it is expected that our planet will enter a new Ice Age, that tectonic plates will continue to shift, that mega-volcanos will erupt, major earthquakes will occur, ... , and eventually (~7½ billion years) our planet will be consumed by the sun. But as far as we can tell, within about 50 million years, the planet is not likely to wipe us out. It is far more likely that we will take ourselves out either via war, viruses, or driving our protective atmosphere into a hazard to our health.
The article did not mention that the CO2 level is the highest it has been in 2 million years. In the 800,000 years prior to the industrial age (based on evidence such as ice cores which trap ancient air and allow us to see the CO2 levels of the time) our CO2 level ranged between 170ppm and 300ppm. Over the last 200 years we went from 280ppm to the current 440ppm.
The heat-trapping properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is well known.
Overpopulation is what is pushing climate change. I have said that many times. Until that is addressed problems will expand greatly
You are correct in that any poor effects of practices is amplified by the number of agents. As our population expands we need to make our practices increasingly better.
But I would not simplify this problem as merely overpopulation or even primarily overpopulation because population alone is not causing our CO2 saturation of our atmosphere ... it is our intentional release of C via fossil fuels and other practices.
Methane production, however, is directly related to population (especially the population of cattle).
Climate changes and it's causes have been a contentious issue amoung academics for a long time. I remember being at McMurdo Station I Antarctica in 1989 and two climatologists from two different eminent universities at the club one night were having a heated alcohol feuled dispute on climate change that turned into a fist fight! Us military people just sat back, laughed our butts off, and took bets on the winner while those two civilian scientists duked it out with each other. I won the bet. Funny as all get out. Those two gentlemen finally decided they had made big enough fools of themselves, dusted themselves off, had another drink, then left the club arm in arm. High level academia at it's finest!
They must have forgot that beer, wine and spirits generate 0.73–2.38 kg of CO2 equivalents per litre.
Lol
China produces more emissions than the entire western hemisphere. but I'm sure keeping the poors in the US from driving will make a difference.
China is the number one CO 2 emitter in terms of GtC/year and we are number two but with a little less than half as much as China per year.
However China produces 7.38 tons per capita and we produce 15.5 tons per capita.
Climate change is a global problem. Unfortunately there is no force on the planet that can make China behave properly. We either continue to seek cooperation and do our own parts or fold our arms and pout while we compound the problem.
The inmates were in charge of the asylum for almost 2 years.