You don’t want terrorism, stop engaging in terrorism.

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.

Interesting and well-written perspectives? What’s the thread coming to?

Anyway — how seriously do we take anything Trump says? Words and posturing matter, given the US’s stature, but I can’t see Trump allowing Russia to annex Ukrainian territory and permanently shelving NATO membership — which is likely be non-negotiable aspects of any settlement. Hegseth has asked already walked back statements re: NATO.

Btw— maybe this was answered already, but why are you leaving moderation? I had a baby —what’s your excuse?

@fdrake

Stoking the fire is a bannable offense.

you're cute. I like your owners hat. — flannel jesus

Thank you, sir.

Ah — further demonstrating keen perception.

Oh — I’m a guy. That’s me in my profile picture. Why?

What are your pronouns? — Arcane Sandwich

What?

@fdrake

The fact that you kept a member who not only is often abusive (but of course excuses himself for) but, worse, reduces the forum to Twitter-level content — for years — shows how tolerant and level-headed you were. That’s my goodbye message.

Can you grant preemptive pardons to your favorite members as part of your last moderator actions?

Just realized that CO2 levels and Olivia Rodrigo have both increased together — in ppm and age, respectively.

Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions.

Yes, fight all those women and children who had nothing to do with it. I’m sure we’ll “destroy Hamas” any day now…

Your moral instincts are as admirable as your judgment.

Maybe Trump, in his own moronic way, stumbles to putting an end to the war that the US both instigated and prolonged. I doubt it, but who knows?

January wasn't expected to break global temperature records. But it did

Both 2023 and 2024 shattered previous temperature records, hovering near or above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the Earth's temperature in the late 1800s, a time before humans began burning vast amounts of fossil fuels that have inexorably heated up the planet.

But the forecast was projected to ease slightly, primarily because a strong El Niño — a part of a natural climate cycle that had contributed to the intense heat — had faded by late last year. During El Niños, the planet is often warmer than usual. But during the other half of the cycle, called La Niña, it usually cools down. Earth flipped into the La Niña phase last year.

But the expected reprieve hasn't shown up. Instead, January broke yet more records: NOAA reported the month was the hottest January in its 176-year-long record. Copernicus, the European meteorological service that tracks global climate change, reported that January was 1.75 C (3.15 Fahrenheit) above historic levels.

Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years). There’s also a lag effect.

Big shoes to fill.

So this thread is now just a venue for delusional Trump cultists to give Twitter updates and repeat news stories that everyone already knows. Cool.

And start commenting on what is said rather than who said it? — Agree-to-Disagree

…

Mikie

Dana Nuccitelli

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: — Agree-to-Disagree

people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late. — Arcane Sandwich

Indeed.

And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible. — Arcane Sandwich

What scientific prediction are you referring to?

And yes, renewable enjoy is an interesting topic. They’ve become cheaper and more efficient. At this point the problem is the fossil fuel lobby and its propaganda, who want everyone to stay hooked on their products as long as possible (see tobacco companies in previous decades for nearly identical situation) — and political willpower.

Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal — all excellent. Most are cheaper than fossil fuels. The emissions and environmental cost in their production (like giant wind turbines) are all front-heavy, but once they’re built there’s no emissions and they offset the negative effects in a few years. Thec technology is there, we just have to start building — and that’s not always easy, especially in a stupid country where the government is run by reality-denying fossil fuel shills.

There’s also other problems, like the United States electrical grid. We need more transmission lines — which is a major undertaking — to get the solar energy from the sunbelt and the wind energy from the midwestern states to other areas. Nuclear energy can fill the potential gaps, since it’s dispatchable and creates no carbon emissions (although there’s a host of issues there too, including managing waste and the time it takes to build them, although there’s smaller ones that can be built that are in the works).

With EVs there’s a question about the lithium and cobalt, and whether there’s enough to meet demand — although there’s potential for sodium-ion batteries which seems promising. EVs are already great, but will get even better; more charging stations are being built, and they’re becoming cheaper— even with idiots like Trump and his climate denier cronies in office. It’s too late to stop that train— China is a good example. We have to put 100% tariffs on their EVs because they’re cheap and awesome (see BYD).

The question of heavy industry — like steel and cement — is one of the hardest ones. Alternative technologies exist but not to scale, and research is still in its infancy.

We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. — Arcane Sandwich

The problem of climate change and plastics can definitely be tough ones to fully appreciate. It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda: they want to deny what the overwhelming evidence is telling us.

Yeah, but it's like, we can live with less plastic, I'm honestly really sure about that. Can we live with less transportation or less electricity? I'm not so sure. — Arcane Sandwich

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

What are your own thoughts on that? — Arcane Sandwich

You’re basically right— but it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives.

With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy.

It’s cool, but to me it’s not the most obvious example. The most obvious is transportation or electricity. That’s why I found it odd. But no worries.

Why figure on plastics, exactly? Electricity generation, transportation, home heating, cement and steel production, etc — all huge contributors. So why not say that? Why exclusively mention plastics?

The climate is changing at a pace not seen in human history— and it’s because of carbon emissions from using fossil fuels. It’s not that complicated.

“Aren’t you mad that the car that’s served you perfectly well over 8 years is really a piece of junk?”

Oof. No wonder even Frank thinks you’re an idiot.

:up:

“It’s not a complex thing to do.” — Donald Trump on his Gaza plans.

The climate denier’s love affair with a YouTube rando continues.

I am a naturally cynical and skeptical person. — Agree-to-Disagree

:rofl:

Scientists are meant to be skeptical. — Agree-to-Disagree

You’re neither a scientist nor a skeptic. You’re just a guy who falls for the equivalent of flat earth “theory.” But keep telling yourself that — always good for a chuckle.

For anyone reading this thread and thinking it’s just a venue for climate denying idiots to spout nonsense: I and everyone I know loves their EVs. The only problem reported: sometimes they’re too quiet.

If public transportation isn’t available, and a bike won’t do, they’re the obvious choice…and only getting better.

This is what happens when you reach the limits to growth, and by and large, we have reached and surpassed them. Overshoot leads to collapse. — unenlightened

It was obvious that capitalism wasn’t sustainable 100 years ago. Now it’s a fact.

South Asia and West Africa seem at most risk at the moment — jorndoe

And only getting worse. We’re seeing these effects at 1.1. Imagine 2.4.

Regarding deliberately distorting Hansen:

30 years later, deniers are still lying about Hansen’s amazing global warming prediction
This article is more than 6 years old
Koch paychecks seem to be strong motivators to lie

Dana Nuccitelli

Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.


Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.

The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.

Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way.
View image in fullscreen
Scenario B from Hansen’s 1988 paper, with the trend reduced by 27% to reflect the actual radiative forcing from 1984 to 2017, compared to global surface temperature data from Cowtan & Way. Illustration: Dana Nuccitelli
In the WSJ, deniers again lie about Hansen
The incredible accuracy of Hansen’s climate model predictions debunks a number of climate denier myths. It shows that climate models are accurate and reliable, that global warming is proceeding as climate scientists predicted, and thus that we should probably start listening to them and take action to address the existential threat it poses.


Hansen’s predictions have thus become a target of climate denier misinformation. It began way back in 1998, when the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels – who has admitted that something like 40% of his salary comes from the fossil fuel industry – arguably committed perjury in testimony to Congress. Invited by Republicans to testify as the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement was in the works, Michaels was asked to evaluate how Hansen’s predictions were faring 10 years later.

In his presentation, Michaels deleted Hansen’s Scenarios B and C – the ones closest to reality – and only showed Scenario A to make it seem as though Hansen had drastically over-predicted global warming. Deleting inconvenient data in order to fool his audience became a habit for Patrick Michaels, who quickly earned a reputation of dishonesty in the climate science world, but has nevertheless remained a favorite of oil industry and conservative media.


Last week in the Wall Street Journal, Michaels was joined by Ryan Maue in an op-ed that again grossly distorted Hansen’s 1988 paper. Maue is a young scientist with a contrarian streak who’s published some serious research on hurricanes, but since joining the Cato Institute last year, seems to have sold off his remaining credibility to the fossil fuel industry.

In their WSJ opinion piece, Michaels and Maue claimed:

Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

They provided no evidence to support this claim (evidence and facts seem not to be allowed on the WSJ Opinion page), and it takes just 30 seconds to fact check. In reality, global surface temperatures have increased by about 0.35°C since 2000 – precisely in line with Hansen’s 1988 model projections, as shown above. And it’s unscientific to simply “discount” the El Niño of 2015-16, because between the years 1999 and 2014, seven were cooled by La Niña events while just four experienced an El Niño warming. Yet despite the preponderance of La Niña events, global surface temperatures still warmed 0.15°C during that time. There’s simply not an ounce of truth to Michaels’ and Maue’s central WSJ claim.


It’s also worth noting that Hansen’s 1988 paper accurately predicted the geographic pattern of global warming, with the Arctic region warming fastest and more warming over land masses than the oceans. And climate deniers in the 1980s like Richard Lindzen were predicting “that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small.” If anyone deserves criticism for inaccurate climate predictions, it’s deniers like Lindzen who thought there wouldn’t be any significant warming, when in reality we’ve seen the dramatic global warming that James Hansen predicted.

Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation didn’t stop there:

And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

Once again, this unsupported assertion is completely wrong. I evaluated the IPCC’s global warming projections in my book, and showed in detail that theirs have been among the most accurate predictions. The climate model temperature projections in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports were all remarkably accurate; the IPCC predicted global warming almost exactly right.


Why lie? To keep cashing Koch paychecks
We don’t even have to guess at the motivation behind Michaels’ and Maue’s misinformation; they give it away toward the end of their opinion piece, asking:

Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

Michaels and Maue don’t want us to cut carbon pollution, and it’s easy to understand why. They work for the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by and is heavily controlled by the Koch brothers, who have donated more than $30 million to Cato. As Michaels admitted, they’re basically fossil fuel industry employees.

But the answers to their question are simple. As climate scientists have predicted for decades, global temperatures are rising dangerously rapidly. Moreover, research has shown that the economic benefits of cutting carbon pollution far outweigh the costs.

Michaels and Maue want us to bet the future of all life on Earth. They want us to put all our chips on black – a bet that burning billions of barrels of oil and billions of tons of coal every year won’t cause dangerous climate change. They want us to make that bet even though their arguments are based on unsupported lies, whilst they cash paychecks from the Koch brothers.

We would have to be incredible suckers to take their bet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

The part about Lindzen is especially relevant, as several climate deniers on this very page often cite him. Yet the criticisms about predictions are only leveled at climate scientists…hmm

desperate people will deny the facts and withdraw into a fantasy world. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. Hence why we laugh at you.

Haven't the oligarchs watched the Terminator film series?

I'll be back. :cool: — Agree-to-Disagree

Oh hahahahaha! A line from 40 years ago that’s been quoted about a billion times before! What wit. What humor.

Just also worth pointing out how Incredibly unfunny this guy is. (Besides when he’s pretending that he’s not thought of as a complete baffoon — that’s actually hilarious.)

If you had looked at the article then you would have found that the article has links to where it got information from. — Agree-to-Disagree

It really is like dealing with a child.

“This idiotic article has REFERENCES from which it draws its stupid conclusions and moronic implications. I guess THAT shows you!”

Yes, because climate deniers never distort and misinterpret science. I guess creationists aren’t idiots because they often quoted Stephen J Gould. Lol

The Lad Bible is infallible. — unenlightened

Lol- Imagine the level of a mind that reads that crap— let alone takes it seriously…to say nothing of actually referencing it.

Sorry, but your speculations are worthless. Given that this conflict has gone on for 70+ years, to blame Hamas for the Palestinians’ (correct) desire to want to stay in their rightful homeland is ridiculous. Yes, some want to leave. Most want to stay.

So all snarkiness aside for a second. The reality here is that Trump wants an end to the conflict, which is good — and he’s using his experience in business in an attempt at a solution. The problem is what it’s always been: Palestinians don’t want to leave. At this point, now that Gaza has been largely destroyed, I don’t think it’s great that they do — but there’s little alternative for them. The surrounding areas won’t take them, and of course there are both religious and cultural reasons to stay, quite apart from their feeling of justice.

It’s a sad situation, and I’m actually truly rooting for Trump to mix things up. I was hoping for something more serious than this, though. It’ll just involve the US troops in the conflict, which will continue.

What Likud has done here is really unfortunate for Israel. They’ve wanted an excuse to ethnically cleanse the region, and Hamas provided them a great one with the horrid October 7th attacks on innocent people. It has to be understood in a historical context, as the treatment of the Palestinians has been awful for decades— but it doesn’t excuse it either. Nor does it excuse the disproportionate response.

I think Mearsheimer is right yet again: the Isael lobby in Washington is still very powerful indeed, to the point where even Trump — who is anti-war— can’t bring himself to demand a two state solution.

What a disappointment.

Global Temperatures Shattered Records in January

In a report this week, James Hansen, the famed former NASA scientist, argued that cutting pollution had already played a big role in causing global warming to accelerate. The reason is a little counterintuitive: For decades, humans have not only been emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases when they burn fossil fuels. They’ve also been spewing tiny sulfate particles into the air.

These particles spur the formation of more and brighter clouds, which help shield Earth from the sun. But as regulators have curbed sulfate pollution to protect people’s lungs, this cooling effect has diminished, exposing the planet to more of the full force of greenhouse warming.

It’s been so warm that scientists are looking for areas added warmth might be coming from.

Not great.