Cont: Global warming discussion V

Climate scientists are calling it an ‘anomaly’, which is not so much an explanation as an admission that they can’t explain it.
Click to expand...

Really?

I was thinking maybe " .... forty billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. " might have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Food for thought: Climate: The anomaly making scientists scratch their heads.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/350229370/climate-anomaly-making-scientists-scratch-their-heads

I won't immediately jump to spruiking his book.
Click to expand...
I hope he's wrong, because if he's right it could be very bad news.

Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways
There have also been two dozen times during the past 46,000 years when major volcanic eruptions occurred every year or two or even several times per year for decades. Each of these times was contemporaneous with very rapid global warming. Large volumes of SO2 erupted frequently appear to overdrive the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere resulting in very rapid warming...

Massive reduction of SO2 should be a top priority in order to reduce both global warming and acid rain.
Click to expand...
Imagine that we already did that, and yet the global temperature continued to rise. That could mean reducing SO2 was masking the true rate of temperature rise. That's bad, but here's what would be even worse:- people get the idea that putting more SO2 into the atmosphere would reduce global warming, which it does do for a few years - until...

I fear that geoengineering will be touted as the only way to keep the temperature down, and people support it enthusiastically because then they can carry on with business as usual. We could do something stupid like this and really screw the planet.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...jump-in-antarctic-raises-fears-of-catastrophe

On 18 March, 2022, scientists at the Concordia research station on the east Antarctic plateau documented a remarkable event. They recorded the largest jump in temperature ever measured at a meteorological centre on Earth. According to their instruments, the region that day experienced a rise of 38.5C above its seasonal average: a world record.

This startling leap – in the coldest place on the planet – left polar researchers struggling for words to describe it. “It is simply mind-boggling,” said Prof Michael Meredith, science leader at the British Antarctic Survey.
Click to expand...
 
Roger Ramjets said:
I fear that geoengineering will be touted as the only way to keep the temperature down, and people support it enthusiastically because then they can carry on with business as usual.
Click to expand...


It is already being touted as that by some people. While others pretend that making individual personal changes to 'lower our carbon footprint' is the way to go, unfortunately.

The "Do Something Anywhere at Any Time" approach allows countries and companies that produce the highest greenhouse gas emissions to fail to do anything effective.
All while making you believe that you are the problem and you are the solution.
It tells us that we can change the lightbulbs and buy energy-efficient cars instead of making widespread policy changes.
So what do we need to do?
We need to understand that we can't save the planet through our personal choices day to day. But, we can change where energy comes from!How products are made and who can access sustainable ones!
That way, everyone's emissions go down regardless of individual choices.
We can change how we all change our environments."
Click to expand...


A short video about this immensely stupid idea that actual change can come about by recycling, going vegan, switching out out a light bulb, or driving an electric car.
If you can afford it ...
Recycling, planting trees, and going vegan are just a handful of the many ways to reduce our carbon footprint. Companies and countries do it too, performing small individual tasks anywhere at any time to “save the planet.” But these small actions have little impact when compared to the vast polluting and emissions-intensive systems that underpin modern society. In this episode, join Dr. Rae Wynn-Grant to explore how making individuals fully responsible for reducing emissions can be counterproductive to combat climate change.
Does "Every Little Thing" REALLY Stop Climate Change? (PBS Terra on YouTube, April 4, 2024 - 8:33 min.)
Click to expand...

However, it is unfortunate that PBS stops short of telling people that system change (and not 'Vote for Biden' (which is doesn't say, but it is implied)) is required in order to 'change how we all change our environments'.
 
Good info, and right on target.

But these small actions have little impact when compared to the vast polluting and emissions-intensive systems that underpin modern society.
Click to expand...

Lots of lip service, but society at large refuses to give up the luxuries that are driven by the fossil fuel industry..
 
Deeply self-contradictory, as usual. If "you are the problem" is false, that is to say, I am not the problem and my individual actions don't help, then why should I do or change anything? The advice here seems to be to wait patiently for that system change. Let me know when it's done.
 
Myriad said:
Deeply self-contradictory, as usual. If "you are the problem" is false, that is to say, I am not the problem and my individual actions don't help, then why should I do or change anything? The advice here seems to be to wait patiently for that system change. Let me know when it's done.
Click to expand...

This is just another form of denialism, this whole we're all victims of the fossil fuel industry and unless there's some magical world transformation miracle delivered instantly then we're all doomed. Not a heck of a lot of difference between that argument and the climate has always changed argument. Both are equally extreme.

I like how, in the video they mention the global 1% but fail to mention the amount of wealth needed to qualify for that group. I know, we're all supposed to shake our fists at the uber rice (except Taylor Swift) however.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The irony there, is that if you wipe out poverty, you're just creating more customers for the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...

True. I just used that article because it was the first one that popped up WRT the 1% but all those people in those developing nations with low emissions all want to be carbon emitters just like us.
 
Myriad said:
Deeply self-contradictory, as usual. If "you are the problem" is false, that is to say, I am not the problem and my individual actions don't help, then why should I do or change anything? The advice here seems to be to wait patiently for that system change. Let me know when it's done.
Click to expand...


If you had watched the short video, you would know what should be changed, what would have an impact. What you think seems to be the advice is uninteresting. The advice is not what you think it is, and it is not deeply self-contradictory. That assessment is also based on ignorance. It's a strawman, as usual.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
The irony there, is that if you wipe out poverty, you're just creating more customers for the fossil fuel industry.
Click to expand...


No, you are not. The trick of your argument is to pretend that the only way to produce what people want is by means of fossil fuel. Not true.
People want stuff that makes their lives easier and more comfortable. Their thinking isn't: I want to burn fossil fuels! But with current conditions, the things that they want are generally produced by burning fossil fuels, and that's what needs to change.
The PBS video makes it clear.

I'm surprised that this appears to be so difficult to understand.
 
Stout said:
True. I just used that article because it was the first one that popped up WRT the 1% but all those people in those developing nations with low emissions all want to be carbon emitters just like us.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what "all those people in those developing nations with low emissions all want." 'When I grow up (or when I get rich), I want to be a carbon emitter'.
See previous post. It's pretty easy to understand why this idea has nothing to do with reality.
 
dann said:
No, you are not. The trick of your argument is to pretend that the only way to produce what people want is by means of fossil fuel. Not true.
Click to expand...
I'm not really arguing for anything.

I'm just stating the obvious.
Meanwhile we can imagine a better world where industry abandons fossil fuels to produce what people want.


People want stuff that makes their lives easier and more comfortable. Their thinking isn't: I want to burn fossil fuels! But with current conditions, the things that they want are generally produced by burning fossil fuels, and that's what needs to change.The PBS video makes it clear.
Click to expand...
Now, if only PBS had an audience that is in a position to make the necessary changes.
Industry that's driven by fossil fuel consumption wants an alternative besides going out of business.
I'm surprised that this appears to be so difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

Difficult for who?
 
dann said:
No, that's not what "all those people in those developing nations with low emissions all want." 'When I grow up (or when I get rich), I want to be a carbon emitter'.
See previous post. It's pretty easy to understand why this idea has nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, they all want what you got and are only low emitters because they can't afford it. This is reality.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
I'm not really arguing for anything.

I'm just stating the obvious.
Meanwhile we can imagine a better world where industry abandons fossil fuels to produce what people want.
Click to expand...


But you can't imagine doing anything to put a stop to the burning of fossil fuels that that industry is doing.

Now, if only PBS had an audience that is in a position to make the necessary changes.
Industry that's driven by fossil fuel consumption wants an alternative besides going out of business.

Difficult for who?
Click to expand...


For you, apparently.
When PBS points out what the actual problem is, your response is to blame the attitude of stick to the idea that nothing should be done about it, much the same way that nothing should be done about poverty because if poor people were no longer poor they would burn fossil fuels!

One thin is the the 'position' of the PBS audience. Another thing is your attitude
Who is in a "position" to do anything about "the actual problem"? The powers that be?

It's no wonder that so many of you appear to want to leave it to the industrialists or maybe people like Biden to put a stop to it. It's the Dickensian imaginary solution posing as realism: If only people who are "in a position to make the necessary change" would make the change, which they wouldn't, obviously, because they are the ones who benefit from the burning of fossil fuels.
So its much easier to speculate that in the very unlikely situation that poor people getting rich under the current circumstances, which produce both global warming and poverty, would exacerbate global warming.

'Alas, it's out of my hands. If only the PBS audience were in a position ...'
'if only people in a position to make the necessary changes would make them ... just like Scrooge who had a change of heart.'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom