climate change - Is Elon too late?

[jrad6515]

SO2 causes cooling; CO2 causes warming... that's how physics works. Most scientists recognized that CO2 was winning. Guess what happens if you pass laws to limit adding SO2 but lack the courage or intelligence to limit CO2...

Which fact do you think is untrue?

1. CO2 levels have risen ~40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2. The burning of Fools Fuel has emitted over twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise (what hasn't collected in the atmosphere is acidifying the oceans)
3. Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C. The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years...

How can all be true but Global Warming false? If you deny physics.... you're not a skeptic, you're a denier... that's how english works...

I'm curious how deep this rabbit hole goes... do you think the Earth is flat? That water or fire are elements?

Thanks for the insulting and condescending reply, so typical of AGW alarmists these days.

Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C.

Are you aware that millions of years ago CO2 was 10X higher than it is now, around 4,000ppm, and the earth did not burn up? As with most AGW theories your explanation is very simplistic and leaves out a lot, especially feedbacks.

 

[EinSV]

It would be great if we could have some constructive and informative threads about the progress (or not) toward tackling the climate change problem for those of us who agree with the scientific consensus that it is a massive threat.

There could be separate threads for those who want to debate pro or con whether anthropogenic climate change exists, or is a big deal.

Otherwise, every thread on climate change gets drowned out by the small minority of members who don't believe in climate change or are "skeptics," which makes it impossible to have a constructive discussion about tackling the climate change problem.

 

[thegruf]

Thanks for the insulting and condescending reply, so typical of AGW alarmists these days.

Are you aware that millions of years ago CO2 was 10X higher than it is now, around 4,000ppm, and the earth did not burn up? As with most AGW theories your explanation is very simplistic and leaves out a lot, especially feedbacks.

I don't see anybody questioning that. Undoubtedly the climate would have been completely different at that time too.

The bit that is important is the rate of change.

The planet's climate has evolved massively over millions of years no doubt.

In relative terms, we have put a step function change into this slow and complex responding system and only retrospectively are now seeing and predicting the results of this abrupt change. What is eminently clear though is that the natural world is simply not able to able to respond quickly enough to man's impact on the plaent whether it be through climate change or habitat loss. For every sepcies that dies out the world becomes a poorer place, and it will take millions of years for such diversity to return.

some large animal reports (as people don't get bugs)

Rhino
After Last Male's Death, Is the Northern White Rhino Doomed?


Elephant
African Elephants Numbers Plummet 30 Percent, Survey Finds



Orangutan
Nearly 150,000 Bornean Orangutans Lost Since 1999, Cutting Population By Half


Tiger
What's Driving Tigers Toward Extinction?

sadly deniers will deny ever more desperately because it takes a brave person to admit they got it wrong

 

[DanCar]

... agree with the scientific consensus that it is a massive threat...

How much of the scientific consensus has a PHD in global economics necessary to decide if it is good or bad? How many are looking at the good and not just the bad? How many frame everything as a negative even though it is a positive? That the planet was able to support huge dinosaurs when PPM was 1000+ is an interesting datapoint. Suggest plants were growing abundantly to support such huge magestic creatures.
Climate during the Carboniferous Period

 

[SageBrush]

Are you aware that millions of years ago CO2 was 10X higher than it is now, around 4,000ppm,

While you were a little rodent, barely worth a neck stretch to eat.

 

[DanCar]

some large animal reports (as people don't get bugs)

As you suggest these large animals are dying out due to direct impact of humans and has little to do with climate change. Obviously killing big animals is a problem and should be stopped.

 

[DanCar]

While you were a little rodent, barely worth a neck stretch to eat.

While you were a little rodent, not worth a neck to stretch. You really need to get back to your meds.

 

[SageBrush]

Thanks for the insulting and condescending reply

At least it is deserved.

You do raise a question though that I wonder how you answer: should a moron be called a moron ?

 

[dhrivnak]

Are you aware that millions of years ago CO2 was 10X higher than it is now, around 4,000ppm, and the earth did not burn up? As with most AGW theories your explanation is very simplistic and leaves out a lot, especially feedbacks.

Yes that is true, but at that time it was also true there was no ice on the planet and sea levels were 200' higher. At that time the sun was also dimmer.

Since we now have homes, roads, hotels and a HUGE amount of infrastructure designed around current sea levels any significant change is very costly. Likely far more costly than moving to renewable energy.

 

[SageBrush]

Yes that is true, but at that time it was also true there was no ice on the planet and sea levels were 200' higher. At that time the sun was also dimmer.

Since we now have homes, roads, hotels and a HUGE amount of infrastructure designed around current sea levels any significant change is very costly. Likely far more costly than moving to renewable energy.

I know you are trying to write at a level that Jrad might grasp but the scale is so much greater.
40% of the world's human population lives with 100 km of a coastline.

 

[nwdiver]

Thanks for the insulting and condescending reply, so typical of AGW alarmists these days.

Thanks for completely meeting my expectations and completely ignoring the facts I posted. So typical of AGW deniers.

Are you aware that millions of years ago CO2 was 10X higher than it is now, around 4,000ppm, and the earth did not burn up? As with most AGW theories your explanation is very simplistic and leaves out a lot, especially feedbacks.

??? Did I claim that the earth would 'burn up'? Let me check...

1. Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in temperature of >3C.

Nope. Another standard tool in the denier toolbox... the strawman. You're really hitting all the wickets...

You realize there was almost certainly no Ice at the poles when CO2 was 10x higher => sea levels were >200' higher... right? Sounds like that might be a problem. No worries... I'm sure we can just 'throw some dirt on it' or if that doesn't do the trick... remove some water from the ocean...

Yeah... I'm done with this nonsense. You're ideologically committed to denial. Waste of time trying to reason with a zealot.

 

[DanCar]

Since we now have homes, roads, hotels and a HUGE amount of infrastructure designed around current sea levels any significant change is very costly.

How much does a 6 foot berm cost by the end of the century? Denmark manages just fine with much of the country under sea level.

 

[SageBrush]

The side effects of AGW are so great, they really do just about defy understanding.
The trumpers and denialists should consider that the world is barely starting to see AGW effects, and it has already been enough to bring the majority of the major industrialized countries to direct involvement in a regional war in the Middle East. Only the most profoundly stupid are blind to the role drought played as kindling for that conflict.

 

[DanCar]

The side effects of AGW are great: no more ice age, plants have more CO2 to breath, more water vapor in the air, meaning more rain, etc...
The climate alarmists should realize that the world has been getting so much better since the start of global warming. Only the profoundly stupid don't realize that religious fanaticism plays the largest role in conflict in the middle east. With some intelligence and cooperation water projects would help with dry conditions.

 

[nwdiver]

The side effects of AGW are so great, they really do just about defy understanding.
The trumpers and denialists should consider that the world is barely starting to see AGW effects, and it has already been enough to bring the majority of the major industrialized countries to direct involvement in a regional war in the Middle East. Only the most profoundly stupid are blind to the role drought played as kindling for that conflict.

There's a sick irony in the fact that the people denying that their foolish behavior is partially responsible for the immigration crisis are often also rejecting the immigrants...

Even the tree huggers at the pentagon define climate change as a 'threat multiplier'...

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

There could be separate threads for those who want to debate pro or con whether anthropogenic climate change exists, or is a big deal.

Actually, posts of global warming denial are banned on many forums now, because the attacks devolve, from people who don’t want to accept reality.

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

Yes that is true, but at that time it was also true there was no ice on the planet and sea levels were 200' higher. At that time the sun was also dimmer.

Since we now have homes, roads, hotels and a HUGE amount of infrastructure designed around current sea levels any significant change is very costly. Likely far more costly than moving to renewable energy.

There was a peer reviewed paper released very recently on that exact question - the costs of inaction vs action. The inaction costs were higher, in the multiplies of trillions

 

[nwdiver]

There was a peer reviewed paper released very recently on that exact question - the costs of inaction vs action. The inaction costs were higher, in the multiplies of trillions

Not to mention that many of the solutions are free. Solar? Free after ~10 years. EVs? Free on day 1 if you're buying an EV over a POS BMW or Corvette or Porshe or any of the other nonsense fools fuel cars that we still keep littering our road with for some reason.... the fact we're still expending resources to keep making new fools fuel cars is beyond pathetic....

 

[Nuclear Fusion]

When they needed a wider definition of the effect of man-made yet naturally occurring greenhouse gasses they changed it to climate change.

They broadened the term because they found they could blame every kind of natural weather pattern on "anthropogenic greenhouse gases". If it gets wetter? Man. If it gets colder? Man. If there is a drought? Man. If there is a flood? Man.

In addition to having to change the name from global warming to climate change, to accomodate the snowflakes (topic pun intended), research circa 2000 by Jost et al found that, for the group that cannot be named, the more confronting the facts of global warming the more they regressed into denial of the science. The research suggested that to cognitively get a message through to said group, the message has to be ‘softened’ to accomodate them (such as demonstrating the potential business opportunities from action on global warming).
Another paper by Lewandowski et al. found that there was correlation between AGW denial & belief in conspiracy theories like the moon landings, JFK assassination, etc
Said group that cannot be named is also more likely to believe in a book of 2000+ year old fairy tales.

I’m seeing a pattern....

 

[ggr]

How much does a 6 foot berm cost by the end of the century? Denmark manages just fine with much of the country under sea level.

Who cares enough about those Denmarkians to realize that they don't live in Holland?