Man Made Climate Change

[Deleted member 28227]

The context of the conversation was that there needs to be civil discussions about issues of concern.

This is a fair point.

Academia can be an echo chamber and political, and strong personalities to try to crush opposing voices in order to promote their own careers.

I fully support rigorous study and skepticism of commonly held believes. Human history is full of countless examples of brilliant thinkers being shunned by the status quo but ultimately being found correct; Galileo, Copernicus, McClintock, Darwin, Tesla... etc.

The key difference is all of these individuals spent their lives pursuing science, and amassed incontrovertible evidence through deliberate and careful inquiry.

 

[3855WIN]

This is a fair point.

Academia can be an echo chamber and political, and strong personalities to try to crush opposing voices in order to promote their own careers.

I fully support rigorous study and skepticism of commonly held believes. Human history is full of countless examples of brilliant thinkers being shunned by the status quo but ultimately being found correct; Galileo, Copernicus, McClintock, Darwin, Tesla... etc.

The key difference is all of these individuals spent their lives pursuing science, and amassed incontrovertible evidence through deliberate and careful inquiry.

Have you ever thought about being a professor? You really sound like a bright guy with an ability to explain things. Lots of quality post.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I care about climate change about as much as I care about the WNBA. So I got that going for me which is nice.

Meanwhile in Idaho...

 

[MTGomer]

It seems the USA is leading more than we’re told.

Global emissions- a bleak picture

CO2 output increase or decrease by nation
(You can thank @wllm1313 and the rest of the frackers, no matter how much it hurts you to do so.)

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Sometimes I think the only solution to this problem is a mass die-off of biomass, especially the specific kind of biomass that is capable of mass exploitation of natural resources.

As a species our technology was much worse for the environment 100 years ago, there are just 4x as many people dependent on the Earth resources now, than in 1919.

Another interesting tidbit, about 58% of the earth population exists in the top ten most populace countries, in that top 10, I would suspect that the US is the only country letting concern over the environment drive economic decision making in any way.

I think the worst thing the scientific community did, or maybe it was just inflicted on them, was letting one political party be their advocate. As soon as there is a D or R behind an issue, it is guaranteed to be completed jacked up....

 

[noharleyyet]

Well said MinnHunter...especially the last paragraph

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Another interesting tidbit, about 58% of the earth population exists in the top ten most populace countries, in that top 10, I would suspect that the US is the only country letting concern over the environment drive economic decision making in any way.

Of the top 10 countries with the largest populations, agree.
Of the top 10 economies (US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, India, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada) I would say more than half strongly consider climate change in their policies.

I think of the sliver linings of the climate issues is that the largest population counties also have the least infrastructure. Which sounds bad on the surface, but which does mean they are less entrenched in current energy technology and therefore have a greater capacity to pivot to cleaner sources.

It's a lot easier for a village in Nigeria to just start off with LED lights powered by individual solar systems, then it is for counties like the US to retrofit. Think about the logistical nightmare of fixing flint's lead pipes.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

Of the top 10 countries with the largest populations, agree.
Of the top 10 economies (US, China, Japan, Germany, UK, India, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada) I would say more than half strongly consider climate change in their policies.

Agreed. It would be interesting to find the information on finding some data by country as to the percentage of their economy driven by industries making the great contribution to the problem.

In some ways, as India and China go, so do we all......

 

[Northwoods Labs]

The greenhouse effect is not debatable. Without greenhouse gasses the earth's temperature would be much colder than it actually is. Greenhouse gasses trap heat that would otherwise be lost from earth. Temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation. As we pump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it most certainly does impact the earth's climate



I just cannot believe people still want to debate this point, other than they just want to bury their head in the sand. The debate lies on what actions we are going to take

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Meanwhile in Idaho...

Exactly...but at least I'm doing my part by driving a horse.

 

[ChrisS]

I support the totality of the science. Which is overwhelming.

Climate change is really about rates. How many of you run your trucks at 9k rpm? I mean, the engine is just turning as it always does.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Agreed. It would be interesting to find the information on finding some data by country as to the percentage of their economy driven by industries making the great contribution to the problem.

In some ways, as India and China go, so do we all......

One of the issues I've found frustrating with CO2 production data I've seen is attribution. Say the US produces a barrel of oil and sells it to Germany, who burns it to power a factory to build a solar panel. Typically the CO2 is attributed to the US, rather than Germany. With supply chains bridging multiple international boundaries seems like there is a lot BS in attributing the sin of CO2.

I also find it irritating when counties or states, make a point of banning fracking but don't actually have source rock and then import gas or oil. Yeah coming at you Oregon.

 

[Ben Lamb]

NOLAis going to be underwater again because of a storm surge, historic flooding in the Mississippi River & a hurricane all hitting at once.

The heartland can't grow crops due to massive flooding.

Canadas boreal forest is burning at a rate never before imagined.

Record breaking heat waves across the planet.

But yeah, I ain't listening to some egghead who looks at data & such. Cooter & I got it all figured out down at Jesters last night & global warming is a conspiracy from AOC to make us all socialists who wear the same track suit.

 

[ChrisS]

the idea of man made global warming however is a hoax.

How so?
1) Burning fossil fuels, as well as other human activities such as concrete production, release CO2 to the atmosphere;
2) Atmospheric C02 is increasing rapidly;
3) Quantities of C02 released by human activities fit the increase.
4) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas trapping heat (energy).

If it's not coming from human activities, where is it coming from? Are human activities not really releasing CO2, is that the hoax? Or does it not trap heat in the atmosphere? Is that the hoax?

 

[RockinU]

The greenhouse effect is not debatable. Without greenhouse gasses the earth's temperature would be much colder than it actually is. Greenhouse gasses trap heat that would otherwise be lost from earth. Temperature and CO2 have a strong correlation. As we pump more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it most certainly does impact the earth's climate

View attachment 110045

I just cannot believe people still want to debate this point, other than they just want to bury their head in the sand. The debate lies on what actions we are going to take

There also has to be discussion on what exactly we can do. The reality is that the US can and should do all we can to be better stewards of our planet, but the dark blue line in your graph is influenced by what the rest of the world does as well. We should take a leadership role, but we can't force others to follow us, we can't prevent the bad choices of other nations. We make up less than 5% of the world population, and our country is developed, developing nations who need cheap energy solutions represent a much bigger slice of the pie. Again, it's a complicated issue, and those seldom involve simple solutions.

As an aside, I find how precipitous the changes in your graph are interesting. I know that it still represents long time frames, but relatively, the changes are still quite drastic throughout history.

 

[Sandpounder]

One of the issues I've found frustrating with CO2 production data I've seen is attribution. Say the US produces a barrel of oil and sells it to Germany, who burns it to power a factory to build a solar panel. Typically the CO2 is attributed to the US, rather than Germany. With supply chains bridging multiple international boundaries seems like there is a lot BS in attributing the sin of CO2.

I also find it irritating when counties or states, make a point of banning fracking but don't actually have source rock and then import gas or oil. Yeah coming at you Oregon.

There are some really good points here I think, also through the whole topic. I couldn't resist the temptation to point out (probably incorrectly, that is my style) that the data and statistics look suspiciously like Wikipedia or a government web-site. Neither of those are credible. The best solution so far seems to come from an Avengers movie. I am just kidding, I use both all the time.

I guess on the graph deal, it was about a 12-15 degree swing in 50,000 years from what I could tell, not a 0.9 degree rise in a hundred years which is the number I think I have heard. I see the point though, there have been some big changes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There are some really good points here I think, also through the whole topic. I couldn't resist the temptation to point out (probably incorrectly, that is my style) that the data and statistics look suspiciously like Wikipedia or a government web-site. Neither of those are credible. The best solution so far seems to come from an Avengers movie. I am just kidding, I use both all the time.

Thanos was the real hero of that flick.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There also has to be discussion on what exactly we can do. The reality is that the US can and should do all we can to be better stewards of our planet, but the dark blue line in your graph is influenced by what the rest of the world does as well. We should take a leadership role, but we can't force others to follow us, we can't prevent the bad choices of other nations. We make up less than 5% of the world population, and our country is developed, developing nations who need cheap energy solutions represent a much bigger slice of the pie. Again, it's a complicated issue, and those seldom involve simple solutions.

As an aside, I find how precipitous the changes in your graph are interesting. I know that it still represents long time frames, but relatively, the changes are still quite drastic throughout history.

This is what was frustrating about pulling out the Paris accords. We are not a leader on this issue, and we're in fact, the stone around the rest of the world's neck when it comes to finding solutions. We've completely backed away from the issue at the federal level and we've gone so far as to reduce the previous administrations efforts to reign in profligate emissions.

We may only be 5% of the world's population, but we consume over 25% of it's energy. We are the largest single factor in determining the future of this planet, and we're following the lead of a guy who can't spell hamburger.

 

[RockinU]

This is what was frustrating about pulling out the Paris accords. We are not a leader on this issue, and we're in fact, the stone around the rest of the world's neck when it comes to finding solutions. We've completely backed away from the issue at the federal level and we've gone so far as to reduce the previous administrations efforts to reign in profligate emissions.

We may only be 5% of the world's population, but we consume over 25% of it's energy. We are the largest single factor in determining the future of this planet, and we're following the lead of a guy who can't spell hamburger.

No question that we need to do better. The whole world needs to do better than the Paris accords. As was demonstrated in a graphic earlier in this thread, we are leading in CO2 reductions, much better than some of the countries who are still signatories to the accords. As for being the largest single factor, I'm not sure that's accurate, we need to try to be at least influence wise, but there are 2.8 billion people between China and India, and their consumption might say otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We may only be 5% of the world's population, but we consume over 25% of it's energy. We are the largest single factor in determining the future of this planet, and we're following the lead of a guy who can't spell hamburger.

Bro everyone knows it's hamberder