Global warming, what to do?

[wunksta]

Where did he say those things?

I really shouldn't have to do research for you but here you go
https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia...s_2148505a.pdf

[PC2]

And there are plenty of climatologists and oceanlogists who continue to be skeptical of climate models, not to mention other scientists and economists who from the outside looking in would be skeptical of anything that attempts to localize a phenomenon onto a graph. The myth that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is an immediate existential crisis comes from a bad study called Cooke et al 2013 which looked at online climate research abstracts and attempted to deduce whether they supported or denied the consensus on AGW. This number was then repeated at length in the media by people who have no idea where it came from.

Google Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg (A European), John Christy, Nir Shaviv, David D. Henderson. All respected in climatology or other scientific disciplines (except Henderson who is an economist) and all are skeptical of climate models.

It wouldn't even matter if 100% of scientists agree with each other. Scientist as people don't actually matter at all. It's simply impossible to take predictions such as the future temperature and then convert it into agricultural or economic conclusions. Anything that uses a physics-based output to determine a human-endeavor is pseudoscience, because it would depend on what people choose to do. I've always asked them for their predictive methodology that a third-party could verify, I've never gotten one.

[Deletedaccount1]

I really shouldn't have to do research for you but here you go
https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia...s_2148505a.pdf

You shouldn't have to back up the claims you make? I explicity cited Lindzen in my post for his perfectly legitimate and IPCC-approved criticism of climate models biting off more than they can chew, that doesn't mean I suddenly know everything he has ever said about unrelated particulars like warming levels and Antarctic ice.

That ppt doesn't seem to contain anything controversial in it. It even contains a widely used CO2 graph that I saw in college. He even admits that CO2 levels are rising and this alone will cause some temperature increases. One of the graphs (both from NASA) shows Arctic sea ice decreasing before returning to level and Antarctic sea ice staying consistent. As for temperature, he says there has been a clear 0.7 C increase over 150 years but localized climates are variable in their average temperatures. I'm not sure how anything in that is supposed to be an indictment of his work or even controversial.

[wunksta]

You shouldn't have to back up the claims you make? I explicity cited Lindzen in my post for his perfectly legitimate and IPCC-approved criticism of climate models biting off more than they can chew, that doesn't mean I suddenly know everything he has ever said about unrelated particulars like warming levels and Antarctic ice.

How is that unrelated to the topic? You brought these names up, so why would we not assume you are familiar with their work and claims unless you just googled a bunch of names to drop in the thread?

That ppt doesn't seem to contain anything controversial in it. It even contains a widely used CO2 graph that I saw in college. He even admits that CO2 levels are rising and this alone will cause some temperature increases. One of the graphs (both from NASA) shows Arctic sea ice decreasing before returning to level and Antarctic sea ice staying consistent. As for temperature, he says there has been a clear 0.7 C increase over 150 years but localized climates are variable in their average temperatures. I'm not sure how anything in that is supposed to be an indictment of his work or even controversial.

"Looking at the above, one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. "
This is wrong.

"You have all heard about the arctic sea ice disappearing. Here is what is being spoken of. As you may have heard, nothing of the sort has been happening to Antarctic sea ice..."
This is wrong.

If you are going to name drop people, maybe do some research first because Lindzen constantly gets things wrong and is called out for it. He is not a good example of respectable scientists who disagree with climate models.

[Deletedaccount1]

How is that unrelated to the topic? You brought these names up, so why would we not assume you are familiar with their work and claims unless you just googled a bunch of names to drop in the thread?

"Looking at the above, one can see no warming since 1997. As Phil Jones acknowledged, there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years. "
This is wrong.

"You have all heard about the arctic sea ice disappearing. Here is what is being spoken of. As you may have heard, nothing of the sort has been happening to Antarctic sea ice..."
This is wrong.

If you are going to name drop people, maybe do some research first because Lindzen constantly gets things wrong and is called out for it. He is not a good example of respectable scientists who disagree with climate models.

It is unrelated to the topic because I was talking about climate models, not sea ice levels. I've read Lindzen's articles on climate models which, again, the IPCC has used themselves. I doubt they would acknowledge his criticisms if he was not respected or that he would be a tenured professor of meteorology at MIT if he as not respected. I'm not familiar with all aspects of his research because frankly climatology is not that interesting. What I do find interesting is the idea that a computer can take hundreds of poorly understood variables and compute that onto a graph which now becomes gospel to some people.

Why are you saying those things are wrong when you have perfectly legitimate graphs in front of you in that powerpoint showing global average temperatures and the area of Antarctic sea ice? If those things are wrong that lies with NASA's measurements when they published those findings.

[wunksta]

It is unrelated to the topic because I was talking about climate models, not sea ice levels.

Changes in the ice caps and increase in temperature over the decades is absolutely related to the main topic of this thread and used in climate models.

Why are you saying those things are wrong when you have perfectly legitimate graphs in front of you in that powerpoint showing global average temperatures and the area of Antarctic sea ice? If those things are wrong that lies with NASA's measurements when they published those findings.

It's omitting data by only using the changes in surface temperature to say that it's not significant. Compare that to the ocean temperature over the past few decades which shows drastic changes. As for antarctic sea ice, here is what NASA says. There's multiple points of data showing that temperature is increasing and having an effect.

If you are just trying to argue that it's difficult for climate models to claim that agriculture in some areas of the globe will suffer due to changing weather patterns, then sure that's difficult. Increased CO2 isn't the only factor though. Ocean warming can potentially disrupt the ocean current and affect regional weather patterns. Just because it's difficult to predict future outcomes doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. People should prepare for potential climate related problems and we should make an effort to mitigate it if possible.

[SirBeef]

What are you claiming can't be returned from? Try to be precise.

The warming trend. The point when we have enough time to stop CO2 emissions from rising or even lower them.

[PC2]

The warming trend. The point when we have enough time to stop CO2 emissions from rising or even lower them.

Don't worry we can still stop and lower CO2 emissions in the future.

[SirBeef]

Don't worry we can still stop and lower CO2 emissions in the future.

When human numbers are severely diminished.

[PC2]

When human numbers are severely diminished.

No the population is going up to 8 billion, it could even be up to 9 billion by 2070.

[SirBeef]

No the population is going up to 8 billion, it could even be up to 9 billion by 2070.

Comment












You.

I know this. We are not fixing the issue. Things will correct itself once we start dying off in large numbers due to climate changes that fuck with sea levels, exacerbate extinction of important species, and the cause extreme droughts and famines. No tech, or green solution is viable now.

[Vash The Stampede]

What to do?

Lots of things can be done. The question is, what are you willing to sacrifice to fix it? Lab grown meat, electric cars, and the very collapse of capitalism itself are all things needed to save our environment, but how many people are willing to eat lab grown meat or drive electric cars? Capitalism itself needs to collapse as it's mainly responsible for the pollution and the abuse of natural resources. You shouldn't need a new car every 5-10 years, you shouldn't need to replace appliances because of planned obsolescence. Every person should have their own bag and container to get whatever fluid or food they need to reduce waste. Every home should have solar panels or wind turbines to generate their own power, without being connected to the grid. All homes should use DC power as standard instead of AC, because the conversion of DC to AC back to DC is inefficient for solar power, and majority of appliances use DC power anyway, and those on the grid have to convert AC to DC anyway but at the appliance level. Basically we need a new outlet that's universal for DC power so we can start making appliances that use DC, so that solar power is more efficient.

[PC2]

Lots of things can be done. The question is, what are you willing to sacrifice to fix it? Lab grown meat, electric cars, and the very collapse of capitalism itself are all things needed to save our environment, but how many people are willing to eat lab grown meat or drive electric cars? Capitalism itself needs to collapse as it's mainly responsible for the pollution and the abuse of natural resources. You shouldn't need a new car every 5-10 years, you shouldn't need to replace appliances because of planned obsolescence. Every person should have their own bag and container to get whatever fluid or food they need to reduce waste. Every home should have solar panels or wind turbines to generate their own power, without being connected to the grid. All homes should use DC power as standard instead of AC, because the conversion of DC to AC back to DC is inefficient for solar power, and majority of appliances use DC power anyway, and those on the grid have to convert AC to DC anyway but at the appliance level. Basically we need a new outlet that's universal for DC power so we can start making appliances that use DC, so that solar power is more efficient.

No it's big economies and populations that cause pollution. The causation isn't based on capitalism, liberal democracy, anarchism, communism, etc.

Update: Also technology is the other major cause. As tech gets better we can get the same utility with less pollution.

[Vash The Stampede]

No it's big economies and populations that cause pollution. The causation isn't based on capitalism, liberal democracy, anarchism, communism, etc.

Populations for more modern countries are slowing down and there's not enough babies being born to offset the loss and elderly. So I'd say the population is fine, with a problem of a growing elderly population being the biggest problem. The problem with capitalism is that we expect infinite growth, and that means getting people to throw away their old stuff for new stuff. If this cycle stops then we hit recessions and our economy is in a panic. But throwing away old stuff is what causes pollution, but not just from trash it creates but as well as the pollution made from manufacturing. This is why we need a future with products that are modular so that something isn't entirely thrown away but only a piece of it is. For example a car can run indefinitely as long as we have parts, and if we upgrade those parts then those old cars won't pollute as much in terms of CO2 and won't fill up the land fills. You can't just take a 2002 Honda Civic and buy a 2019 Honda engine and stick it in there as these cars were never built with modularity in mind.

Or take the modern cell phone where removing the battery requires a degree in computer science. The phones are built so that batteries can't be removed but all batteries wear out in time. So inevitably phone manufacturers want you to throw away your phones in favor of newer designs, despite that throwing away your phone will create more pollution. It took companies years to agree on using a single cable to charge phones (NOT APPLE), so getting them to work together to create module products that can share and upgrade parts would be impossible without the government getting involved and pushing for standards. If it wasn't for the government we wouldn't have better auto emissions and safety features on modern cars.

If we want to save our planet then capitalism needs to take a hit for the team. Like, a major hit in the gut.

[PC2]

@Vash The Stampede

Again it doesn't matter which economic system is used. Whichever one is worse at infinite growth will eventually lose out to the one that is better at it.

[Trassk]

Nothing can be done now. There are far to many human beings on the planet, so many people increases industry, which produces endless waste, more then can be cleared.

Even if ideas where thought up, it wouldn't matter, you'd have to change the fundamental structure of human society to get it to work, and your average joe just isn't prepared to make those sacrifices

[Vash The Stampede]

@Vash The Stampede

Again it doesn't matter which economic system is used. Whichever one is worse at infinite growth will eventually lose out to the one that is better at it.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism will eventually destroy itself, but a new system will take its place. Whatever that system is must not allow the free market to be free anymore. What's wrong with making auto manufacturers all use IEEE like standards for things like electric batteries, engines, and etc so that we don't trash our vehicles? Avoid using steal that rusts and eventually breaks down, like having an alloy that's far stronger and corrosion resistant than just regular steal? Force cell phone manufacturers to have removable batteries. Better yet, have cell phone manufacturers avoid fully charging and discharging those batteries so they don't wear out within a few years.

Basically we need regulations, and a lot of them. We need engineers who know what needs to be done to reduce waste and make our society more efficient and enforce those standards on manufacturers. Planned obsolescence is a significant contributor to our global warming problem, and having schematics and diagrams for everything so that people can have them repaired would be a major step in fighting global warming. But like I said, there's a sacrifice that needs to be made and that means the death of a lot of industry. Manufacturing would drop, as well as profits. Less manufacturing also means less pollution. The upside is that new industry can be created, and if we promote the repair of products instead of discarding them then new service jobs can be made. As it stands right now it's far cheaper to replace a broken appliance or electronic than to attempt to repair it. That's because repairing something isn't usually as easy as changing a light bulb. Hence why I said we need standards based on a modular design.

You can't have your free market capitalism and your green Earth. A sacrifice is needed.

[JohnBrown1917]

Nothing can be done now. There are far to many human beings on the planet, so many people increases industry, which produces endless waste, more then can be cleared.

Even if ideas where thought up, it wouldn't matter, you'd have to change the fundamental structure of human society to get it to work, and your average joe just isn't prepared to make those sacrifices

Good to see the conservatives and/or liberals now moving to defeatism instead of outright denial. Its a step forward!

[PC2]

Don't get me wrong, capitalism will eventually destroy itself, but a new system will take its place. Whatever that system is must not allow the free market to be free anymore.

No I don't think so, at least not in places that have liberal democracy. Because all that happens at each election cycle is a new party tests out slightly different policy. Then people look to see whether the data moved in a good direction or bad direction. There won't be some dramatic moment where the system gets destroyed.

[Swarmyman]

What to do?
Pressure the regions - Asia, South America and Africa to significantly reduce their negative environmental impacts as they contribute almost the entire amount of environmental pollution in this age.

What not to do?
Tax everyone in western countries, tax everything in western countries, force western countries to give billions of dollars to alphabet organisations known for corruption.

Guess which one we are pushed to do?