Question about climate change

Those BC era empires didn't have the knowledge and technology that we enjoy today.

A tautology. We can do a lot better with the resources we have than we are doing.

Not everywhere. Air conditioning use is more related to affluence than need.

Percentage of homes with air conditioning:-

United States 90%
Japan 89%
China 60%
Mexico 16%
Brazil 16%
Indonesia 9%
India 7%

India, Indonesia and Mexico get a lot hotter than China, Japan and the US, yet their air conditioning usage is much lower. We better hope people in those hot countries stay poor, or we're really in trouble!

I think a lot of people don't know this but... thats not entirely true. Sure, the Mexican border area with the US does but thats only a small % of their population. But, Mexico's by far, largest city... Mexico City has an average high of just 80F in its hottest month, its a surprisingly cool and rainy place. Thats cooler than nearly every major US city except Seattle. And except for slums, everyone in Ciudad Juarez has AC.

When 90% of people in India are running AC all day long their C02 levels are gonna go off the chart if their power is from fossil fuels.

ETA: also Brazil... average temps in their two biggest cites... are probably milder than most people think.
 
Last edited:
When 90% of people in India are running AC all day long their C02 levels are gonna go off the chart if their power is from fossil fuels.
Totally agree. We need to keep them poor so they can't afford AC.

ETA: also Brazil... average temps in their two biggest cites... are probably milder than most people think.
I'm going by the data in this article, which rates the number of 'cooling degree days' as:-

United States 882
Mexico 1560
Brazil 2015
India 3120

However this data is from 2015, and it seems the US has been getting hotter since then. Unfortunately I can't find any more recent data.
 
Totally agree. We need to keep them poor so they can't afford AC.


FTFY. (I know you were being sarcastic.)


Meanwhile in Greenland:
Meltwater is hydro-fracking Greenland’s ice sheet through millions of hairline cracks – destabilizing its internal structure (The Conversation, June 29, 2023)
I.e. the ice sheet will probably melt much faster than expected by the IPCC.

Danish version: Smeltevand i millionvis af hårfine sprækker destabiliserer Indlandsisen (Videnskab.dk, July 22, 2023)
 
I think a lot of people don't know this but... thats not entirely true. Sure, the Mexican border area with the US does but thats only a small % of their population. But, Mexico's by far, largest city... Mexico City has an average high of just 80F in its hottest month, its a surprisingly cool and rainy place. Thats cooler than nearly every major US city except Seattle. And except for slums, everyone in Ciudad Juarez has AC.

When 90% of people in India are running AC all day long their C02 levels are gonna go off the chart if their power is from fossil fuels.

ETA: also Brazil... average temps in their two biggest cites... are probably milder than most people think.

Mexico city is at a high altitude, 2240m/7350ft.
 
I didn't understand any of the scientific lingo or proof that was explained here, and I'm not really sure whether the dangers from global warming are a real thing or not, but I do have faith in one philosophy that I've always kept in mind about everything I believe in, say, or do:

Hope for the best, but ALWAYS try to prepare for the worst.

It seems that most deniers are hoping for the best, but don't care one iota about preparing for the worst just in case they're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Do you think humanity should just prepare for the worst? Or actively take steps to prevent the worst? There's a difference.

And there's no excuse for not being sure that global warming is real. Simple observation is enough for that, plus the knowledge required to understand why it's happening is easily obtained. It's not rocket science.
 
Do you think humanity should just prepare for the worst? Or actively take steps to prevent the worst? There's a difference.

Of course, preventing the worst is always the better option, like having your brakes checked before going on a long trip in your car, and by the way, who cares whether my excuse is good or not if I'm already on your side?

Is it now a requirement that someone fully understand the whole argument before they're allowed to pick sides?

Doesn't sound like a fair assessment to me, but if that's the rule, I'll see what I can do about it.

Maybe you can help me out, like where's the best place to start? Any specific books or any specific topics that I should look for on the web that'll help me accomplish this feat? I'm never adverse to learning something new.
 
... I'm not really sure whether the dangers from global warming are a real thing or not ...


Meet the people who want to make sure that you never get sure, and see how they accomplish just that:
 
I see now that for much of the Earth, CO2 increase actually comes before temperature increase. This seemed to be a big question in some people's minds.

Sadly, Im now more convinced. And frightened.
 
Another effect of increasing CO₂, unrelated to planet temperature: it also diminishes people's intellectual capacity.
 
Were you speaking from experience?

There have been a lot of people trying to account for the 'reverse Flynn effect' (measured IQs being lower year on year in recent times).

I had always assumed that it was a hold over from the tetraethyl lead in petrol, but there seems to be a growing suspicion that it is an effect of increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

If you search for 'carbon dioxide reducing intelligence' you'll see many studies and a lot of research.

Note that a google search for 'reverse flynn effect' is also a little concerning.

(Peak IQ was apparently in 1975)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom