political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly. — Pantagruel

:up:

Sounded as if you were saying something along the carbon footprint line, which directs responsibility on the consumer a la the tobacco industry of yore. But if you weren’t saying that — my fault for misreading.



Yes. After COVID, I think people got a sense of just how quickly governments can move if they want to. Prior to that, at least in the states, the example was WWII — but that’s simply not as visceral (or remembered).

I think that arguing about the nature of the problem when the solution is the same describes exactly the fragmentation of political will by diversity of interests. Everyone has a pet peeve, so there are themes of protest identifying different groups. Each is aiming for a "better world," and their overall set of priorities are probably the same, except they disagree as to "what is to be fixed first." When if they pooled their collective agreements, they could realize the political will to address all the problems collectively, which is probably a whole lot more realistic as they are all interrelated.

I don't think they're trying to overconsume, it's just that their world is configured to keep them in that state. — frank

Tomato tomato.

, well, personally, I've been increasingly worried about the environment since ehh the 1980s I think. :) (paralyzing panic doesn't help though)

1982 for me. I was 4 at the time.

70's for me. I was a member of the whole food cooperative that became wholesalers as Suma in 1977. Amazingly, they have managed to survive without me all this time since.

I'm sure with your psychology degree the vegetables are a bit more depressed nowadays.

:cool: Ah, I remember the good old days of Silent Spring and acid rain and the ozone hole, back in the days when the world seemed worth worrying about. The runner beans are doing well this year though, that's private practice for you.

, at least the greenery can't complain about CO₂ levels.

Being among generations where future generations say "They knew, and didn't do anything" isn't the best legacy...

Democrats: It's raining.
Republicans: No it's not.
Media (without bothering to look out the window): There's a political dispute about whether or not it's raining.

Just saw this. Accurate.

The facts are quite clear; the climate scientists are quite clear. — Mikie

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. Haven't they heard of Zoom meetings?

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. Haven't they heard of Zoom meetings? — Agree to Disagree

I have not only heard of Zoom meetings, I've participated. They do not seem to work very well in establishing a practical consensus and strategy between parties with divergent interests.

But if your unspoken suggestion is that because scientists in their private lives conform to the society as it exists and functions, rather than the one they think we should be working towards, and that this is a hypocrisy that invalidates climate change, then it is either a foolish error, or a deliberate misleading. I wonder which?

Another climate denial retort. What a shocker.

So I’m seeing now that you’re just a fairly average climate denier coming here to spread old, tired canards. Scroll up for responses.

Let me guess:

- The climate is always changing.

- Climate scientists the world over are involved in some kind of conspiracy involving controlling people for a New World Order.

- Climate change is happening, but it’s from natural variation, not CO2 buildup.

- Celebrities and scientists use planes/cars/anything involving fossil fuels— bam, climate change is refuted.

- CO2 is good for us.

Etc etc.

Look about right? Thought so.

Why not run along before embarrassing yourself further about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant? :up:

Why not run along before embarrassing yourself further about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant? :up: — Mikie

Good grief.

So I’m seeing now that you’re just a fairly average climate denier coming here to spread old, tired canards. — Mikie

There is nothing "average" about my views on climate change. Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change.

Like with the ludicrous cow example? — Mikie

If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous.

I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth (see the following graph).



I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average winter temperature, and the average summer temperature for each country.

I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country. I have a nice graph which shows the combined data.

Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you?

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. — Agree to Disagree

Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.

Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).

There is nothing "average" about my views on climate change. — Agree to Disagree

No, there is. They fall right in the meaty part of the curve of climate denial. Fairly boring, actually.

If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous. — Agree to Disagree

No, it’s a very real problem. Your characterization of the solution, and your dismissal, is ludicrous.

As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. — Agree to Disagree

Good, so you know very well that the temperature is increasing, and at a very alarming rate. I’m glad you can read a graph.

Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you? — Agree to Disagree

Yep. And from the other ignorant things you’ve said so far, perhaps below average.

Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change. — Agree to Disagree

Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Since you claim to want a discussion, and aren’t here to troll, lets begin. Let me know where you get confused…

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleoCO2_2020dot_1400_2.jpg

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets — Mr Bee

I never said "private jets". You are misquoting me.

Doesn't change the substance of this hypocrisy argument you want to make.

Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Let me know where you get confused…

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856: — Mikie

The only thing that confuses me is how you can have such a simplistic view of climate change.

Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment:
- how much water vapor was in each glass container? Water vapor, like CO2, is a greenhouse gas.
- what was the concentration of CO2 in the glass container which had more CO2 ? Was the concentration of CO2 extremely high in that container?
- you say that the glass container with more CO2 heated up the fastest. But was there a temperature difference between the two containers after a time period long enough for equilibrium to be established?
- were the two glass containers subjected to a day/night cycle like the Earth is?
- Is the Earth in a glass container?

I look forward to reading your answers.

Are you writing a dissertation on Eunice Foote and her experiments? You seem very interested in this specific case.

Anyways that should be discussed in its own topic, don't you think?

Well done.

The world can be reconfigured quite easily, we have been doing it for centuries — unenlightened

We have been reconfiguring the world for centuries -- true. It was definitely not "easy".

The Industrial Revolution demanded extremely strenuous efforts from hundreds of millions of workers, animals, and machines. Further, it took a couple of centuries to accomplish (and, of course, raise CO2 levels enough to make life increasingly difficult).

Take automobiles. There are about 1 billion cars on the world's roads, almost all of them burning fossil fuel. Replacing 1 billion internal combustion engines with 1 billion batteries, and the building generating capacity to keep them all charged, will not be easy.

There are, roughly, 140 million houses just in the US. Most of them are heated or cooled with fossil fuel (directly or indirectly) and many of the houses are poorly insulated. Electrifying 140 million homes and building the requisite wind and solar generating plants will not be easy.

Even acquiring the land and permits to build wind and solar plants is difficult. Building long power transmission lines between windmills and cities requires the acquiescence of many litigious, uncooperative agents.

And so on and so forth.

About climate-change/global-warming.

Plenty of solutions. They’re being employed as we speak. Hardly doomed. It’s a matter of time and political will. — Mikie

There is not much political will to do things that people don't want (if you live in a democracy). — Agree to Disagree

People do want them. — Mikie

Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ?

Here is one example. There are many more.

There are nearly 12 million people who live in Moscow, Russia. All temperatures are in degrees Celsius.
– the average temperature of the coldest month = -12.1
– the average temperature of the year = +4.4
– the average temperature of the hottest month = +22.1

Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? Or are they having street parties to welcome global-warming?

Note that you can still freeze to death at a street party in Moscow. Be sure to take a warm jacket.

Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ? — Agree to Disagree

Most people want a hospitable world for future generations. One thing we could do to contribute to that would be to stop emitting CO2. Short of that, slowing down would help.

Most people want a hospitable world for future generations. — frank

The people who live in Moscow are probably most concerned about the future generations who will live in Russia.

Russians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Russians.
Americans are probably most concerned about the future generations of Americans.
Chinese are probably most concerned about the future generations of Chinese.
Indonesians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Indonesians.
Brazilians are probably most concerned about the future generations of Brazilians.

Not everyone is concerned about the future generations of everybody.

Many/most people are selfish and most concerned with looking after their own.

This is one of the reasons why climate-change/global-warming is unlikely to be "solved".

Many/most people are selfish and most concerned with looking after their own.

This is one of the reasons why climate-change/global-warming is unlikely to be "solved". — Agree to Disagree

Eh, fusion power would solve it along with other problems. Various parties are working on it.

Eh, fusion power would solve it along with other problems. Various parties are working on it. — frank

Would everybody use fusion power peacefully?

With great power comes great responsibility.

Are all people and countries responsible?

Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment: — Agree to Disagree

You can look up the details if you want to. But what is your point? Are you seriously doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?

We can go into the weeds on the greenhouse effect and the physical properties of CO2 if you like. But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?