Hi Lionino. I would like to know where the 2 US temperature maps for Jul 20 2019 came from.

The scale has obviously changed, so how did you get the 2 maps for the same date using the 2 different temperature scales?

You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. — Relativist

This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. — Relativist

Please stop making posts that are reasonable and based on common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:

Love is the recognition of yourself in the other. — frank

I thought that opposites attract. :cool: + :nerd: = :heart:

And if humans were wiped out, I'd put my money on insect supercolonies to evolve into a new form of life. Just as we're made up of individual cells, they'll be made up of individual organisms. That would be cool. — frank

I would put my money on bacteria. Bacteria have always ruled to earth, and always will rule the earth.

Bacteria love global warming. They would like temperatures to be about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Then they can reproduce at their optimum rate, replicating once every 20 minutes.

‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report — Damian Carrington @ The Guardian

The world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, a UN report has found. Experts called the plans “insanity” which “throw humanity’s future into question”.

The energy plans of the petrostates contradicted their climate policies and pledges, the report said. The plans would lead to 460% more coal production, 83% more gas, and 29% more oil in 2030 than it was possible to burn if global temperature rise was to be kept to the internationally agreed 1.5C. The plans would also produce 69% more fossil fuels than is compatible with the riskier 2C target.

The countries responsible for the largest carbon emissions from planned fossil fuel production are India (coal), Saudi Arabia (oil) and Russia (coal, oil and gas). The US and Canada are also planning to be major oil producers, as is the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is hosting the crucial UN climate summit Cop28, which starts on 30 November.

Is there any hope for humanity and the earth?

‘The science is irrefutable’: US warming faster than global average, says report — Oliver Milman @ The Guardian

This headline is misleading because it creates the impression that the US is warming faster than other countries.

The fact is that almost every country is warming faster than the global average. The reason is that the global average includes the oceans which cover about 70% of the earth, and they are warming slower and less than the land.

Is this headline intended to cause fear and anxiety?

What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype? — Merkwurdichliebe

I have posted something like this before.

I have lived through many existential threats to humanity.

- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- the 1973 oil crisis caused by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
- acid rain
- ozone depletion
- an impending ice age
- Halley's comet
- the Large Hadron Collider
- the Y2K bug
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- Covid
- etc

My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change.

You two are so poetical. You both move forward one square at a time, while capturing diagonally, and if you happen to begin the debate, your first move has the option to move forward two squares instead of one...like the rest of us — Merkwurdichliebe

Checkmate. :cool: :up: :party:

But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game. — unenlightened

Oh, the irony, it burns.

but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at. — unenlightened

I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. — unenlightened

At least I don't tell lies to support my comments.

A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda. — unenlightened

You are attacking me personally without commenting on what I have said. Making an ad hominem attack on a Philosophy Forum is the ultimate irony.

Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest. — Echarmion

Do you reply to every bit of every post? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". — Echarmion

I am interested in what other people have to say. I am inviting people to comment on the topics that I post about. If you have anything constructive to say then you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?
— Agree-to-Disagree

Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing. — Echarmion

I have recently posted about:
- the ECS
- my belief that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels
- what I think we should do about rising sea levels
- a news item with the title "2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists"
- a news item with the title "Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution"
- the reason why the climate scientist James Hansen thinks that the Earth is warming faster than expected

Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change?

If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion

So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc.

These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased.

The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value.

What are you doing here though? — Echarmion

I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?

If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence. — Echarmion

If it bleeds, it leads.

I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. — frank

Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink:

Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it? — LuckyR

I think that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels. But slowly enough to not cause very large problems. When the technology is really better than fossil fuels then people will be queuing up to get it. They won't need subsidies and pushing.

The fact is that sea levels are rising. Whether due to human activity or not. We need to make infrastructure changes for this. But infrastructure eventually needs replacing anyway, and this is an opportunity to improve it.

But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing. — ssu

But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake.

I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt.
— frank

Always happy to be someone's significant other. :joke: — unenlightened

I am more of a breast type of guy. :wink:

But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll: — unenlightened

I didn't say that the news item is wrong. What I said is based on the assumption that the news item is correct.

They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from. — frank

Frank, I was a computer programmer for the last 40 years. Just because they "model the climate with super computers" doesn't prove that they are correct. A climate model is based on many assumptions. To "subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere" they need to know how big the effect is. This relies on assumptions. The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. Which value did the climate scientists use?

If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat.

It's been a lot hotter, yes. — frank

When are you talking about Frank? The graph that I displayed shows the history over the last 420,000 years. Are you claiming that "There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling" at some time in the last 420,000 years?

The graph shows a regular pattern with peaks about every 100,000 years. I don't think that major volcanic activity is likely to happen on such a regular schedule.

The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.

What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?

2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists — Kate Abnett and Gloria Dickie, Reuters

Think carefully about the implications of this statement.

125,000 years ago it was as warm as today, or warmer.

The CO2 level 125,000 years ago was about 300 ppm, and the temperature was a few degrees Celsius warmer than today.

So at the moment we have a higher CO2 level, but a lower temperature than 125,000 years ago.

In fact, the current temperature is lower than the peak temperatures for the previous 3 interglacials.

To put it another way, current temperatures are not higher than they were in the past.

I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. — unenlightened

Perhaps you are going through your second childhood. :grin:

just fuck off and die — unenlightened

If you are 71 and three quarters then you are likely to die before me. :halo:

You do know that Deacon is a satirical journalist don't you? — unenlightened

Many a true word is said in jest.

To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment. — unenlightened

It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". They blame almost everything on the older generation. Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example?

Greta Thunberg and her Gen Z friends owe Baby Boomers an apology over climate change

They said ‘older generations’ had let young people down. Yet a new poll on green lifestyle choices tells a very different story

In the poll, those aged 18-24 claimed to be the most worried about climate change. When it came to doing something other than moan, however, it was a different story. Almost 90 per cent of the over-65s said they recycled “as much as possible”, compared with only half of the young. The old were also more likely to save water, turn down the heating, wash their clothes at low temperatures, buy locally produced food, avoid excessive packaging, buy energy-efficient appliances, switch off the lights when leaving a room, and repair things rather than throw them away. On top of that, more of them had cut down on the number of flights they took.

Greta’s generation were more likely to have given up meat. But otherwise, it seemed to be the old doing most of the work.

What are we to make of this mysterious discrepancy? Perhaps Greta’s generation is in such deep despair about the future of the planet that some of them have simply given up trying to save it. There is, however, an alternative possibility – which is that they care more about being seen to have the “right” opinion on climate change than they do about tackling it. A type of behaviour that older people like to call “virtue-signalling”. — MICHAEL DEACON

:halo:

Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution

A new study published in Oxford Open Climate Change, led by renowned U.S. climate scientist James Hansen, suggests one of the main drivers has been an unintentional global geoengineering experiment: the reduction of ship tracks.

As commercial ships move across the ocean, they emit exhaust that includes sulfur. This can contribute to the formation of marine clouds through aerosols — also known as ship tracks — which radiate heat back out into space.

However, in 2020, as part of an effort to curb the harmful aerosol pollution released by these ships, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) imposed strict regulations on shipping, reducing sulfur content in fuel from 3.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent.

The reduction in marine clouds has allowed more heat to be absorbed into the oceans, accelerating an energy imbalance, where more heat is being trapped than being released.

"The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions." — Scientists

Question - should we stop trying to reduce air pollution and aerosol pollution until after global-warming/climate-change is under control?

In essence, "facts" are our best guesses. Our most plausible/convincing, practical and enduring or just simply our most popular beliefs. — Benj96

The lyrics of "The Boxer" by Paul Simon are often appropriate when discussing beliefs, facts, and reality.

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest — Paul Simon

It is quite common for people to disregard facts and reality. Especially when they conflict with cherished beliefs. Some facts can't be ignored, but humans are very skilled at resolving dissonance by ignoring or denying inconvenient facts and reality.

Speaking as one of the super-rich elite, ... — unenlightened

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep …
… then you are richer than 75 per cent of this world.

If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace …
… then you are among the top eight per cent of the world’s wealthy.

At any rate, reasonable and optimum futures on such a scale and with such methods are invariably immoral futures. The amount of force and theft and meddling involved to coordinate such activity, let alone to execute it, would become worse than the initial problems themselves. — NOS4A2

:up: :100:

I cannot comment on what you see or personally imagineer. — universeness

I am a cynical and skeptical old man. :sad:

I was an idealist when I was young, but life turned me into a realist.

If a majority agrees with me and I with them, then we can make such happen. — universeness

And pigs might fly. :grin:

How much credence do you personally give to the possibility that we will destroy ourselves via such as nuclear war? — universeness

It is not just nuclear war that we should worry about. As civilizations create increasingly powerful technologies self-destruction becomes more possible and probable. Some people believe that all civilizations destroy themselves before they achieve interstellar travel. This might explain why we have never detected extraterrestrial life.

Pragmatically, it seems obvious that the challenges to the continued and healthy future of humanity can only be met through collective and cooperative effort at a global scale. — Pantagruel

How to Cut a Slice of Pie the Right Way

If you’re slicing a pie in a conventional 9-inch pie pan, you should aim to cut between 6-8 slices. When you make your first cut with the serrated knife, slice the entire pie in half. Cut the remaining pieces at one time—this ensures all your pieces remain the same size, while also making slice-removal much easier. If the pie is heftier or filled with dense filling, you may want to go for eight pieces. Otherwise, six slices is standard for most 9-inch pies. — Kate Ellsworth

I don't think the chosen label matters, as much as the judgment by the majority, as to whether of not the results of the application of cooperation and compromise, is more beneficial to every stakeholder involved, compared to the results of the application of competition and prioritising self-interest or/and prioritising the flourishing of global elites and celebrity status. — universeness

Why do you think that the judgement of the majority will prevail?

For example, a small minority with nuclear weapons may disagree.

:100:

I'm sure this is true. But is it reasonable? — Pantagruel

What does "reasonable" mean?

Surely what is "reasonable" is a subjective opinion, not an absolute.

Yes, a privileged subset of humanity can survive by exploiting the rest, but that isn't sustainable. — Pantagruel

Who said that sustainability is the result that we should be trying to achieve?

Or have we simple ceased to talk about questions of reasonableness, displacing them with a pure economics of justification? — Pantagruel

Some people may see "a pure economics of justification" as being reasonable.

Pragmatically, it seems obvious that the challenges to the continued and healthy future of humanity can only be met through collective and cooperative effort at a global scale. — Pantagruel

Many people (probably most people) are more concerned with the continued and healthy future of a subset of humanity (e.g. themselves, their family, their friends, their country, etc).

Collective and cooperative effort at a global scale sounds like global communism. This may not work well because of things like corruption and freeloading.

You only need to look at what has been achieved in the fight against global warming to see that collective and cooperative effort at a global scale is almost impossible to achieve.