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://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

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 only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already 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. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).

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.

This is a thread to discuss the current effects of climate change, predictions about its effects, and mitigation efforts. — Mikie

If this thread includes discussion of mitigation efforts, then it must also discuss the problems that will be caused by mitigation efforts.

Trump is freezing climate funds. Can he do that?

“Courts have ordered the president to release Biden-era climate money — but he’s holding out.”

How this turns out will be significant in terms of legal precedent and will have some impact, but not a lot, on the transition to renewables. Likely to be stopped by the courts. Informative read. Gives detailed information about how funds are distributed.

Despite the US’s current government doing its best to destroy the prospects of decent survival, the transition is happening. Likely too late, as it should have happened 40 years ago— but it doesn’t seem like one administration of dopey climate deniers and fossil fuel shills can really stop it.

Must it?

Or could it be a place for people who disagree with you to talk amongst themselves?

Post away, of course, but no one need reply.

Or could it be a place for people who disagree with you to talk amongst themselves? — Moliere

Then why not call the thread "Agree-to-Disagree deniers" ?

@Mikie

Restart the thread with that title in the lounge?

i.e. "Agree-to-Disagree deniers" -- seems pretty clear who is invited

That guy isn’t relevant. I ignored him for over a year, and I’ll do so again once I get my desktop and the ignore extension works again— and in the meantime too.

The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself— and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.

If things get too spammy, I’ll just start a private group chain via messages.

LOL. What a thread.

Another idiot out of nowhere heard from— cool. Valuable insight. :lol:

I very much hope you find something truly compelling to bring your life joy :) It certainly isn't this forum.

No, it often does. Except when random imbeciles make Twitter-like comments for no reason — the joy in that comes from laughing at them, I guess. Or should I say it’s “risible.”

The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself— and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future. — Mikie

Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"?

Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"? — Agree-to-Disagree

I’ll respond this one last time to you, then you’re going on ignore:

Don’t worry about it. I’ve explained it before, but it really doesn’t matter. Think of yourself any way you like, and be well. No hard feelings.

This is a thread to discuss the current effects of climate change, predictions about its effects, and mitigation efforts.

Anyone interested in debating whether climate change is “real,” or wishes to post things from less than credible sources— there’s a separate thread for that purpose. — Mikie

Logic 101: Someone who denies that climate change is real is discussing the effects of climate change. Their position is that the effect is nil.

Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust — Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didn’t happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise it’s against the ethos of the forum.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/sodium-ev-battery-pushes-performance

Still a ways to go, but promising. There’s really not enough lithium for the long term.

Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust — Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didn’t happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise it’s against the ethos of the forum. — Mikie

Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. It is against a rule of the forum. Just because it is not against the ethos of the forum does not mean that it is permissible.

So this is another logical error, namely the idea the that if one is not allowed to contravene the general ethos of the forum, then anything which does not contravene the general ethos of the forum is permissible.

.

I don’t see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic — Mikie

My was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence.

Bungling protestors drill holes in 100 Land Rover tyres in attack on 'fossil fuel death machines'... but all vehicles damaged were electric cars... :rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14427589/protestors-Land-Rover-attack-damaged-electric-cars.html

A group of clumsy woke protestors drilled holes in hundreds of SUV tyres in an attack on 'fossil fuel death machines', not realising they were actually damaging electric vehicles.

Activist group Sabotage Oil for Survival targeted the Land Rover Truro dealership in the village of Scorrier, near Redruth, while other campaigners vandalised cars across Bristol and Exeter.

The group, who are based in Cornwall, posted to social media in the early hours of Monday, February 17, boasting that they had drilled into the tyres of 100 Land Rover SUVs.

But shortly after they posted the video to X, Vertu Land Rover Truro's Head of Business, Wayne McNally, confirmed the group's major error, saying: 'You've drilled through tyres on fully electric cars!!!'

Hey Mikie. I hope that you keep your EV in a locked garage. :scream: