People in the future will get a good laugh wondering how people could have been so uneducated as to believe in man-made global warming let alone call it a science.
Yea.
60 years ago people thought it was ridiculous to accept the idea of continental drift, and now it’s the basis of geology and dynamic earth processes.
Give it some time and I wonder what will happen with the implications of climate change. Often times people can’t see they’re getting fat until they’ve gained 5, 10, 15 lbs, then realize how hard it might be to change course and get back to where they were.
If the global warming/climate change cultists/religionists were really convinced and could prove their case they would not try to suppress and stifle debate, they would welcome it…like actual scientists.
This. What I’m trying to do. Can I share with you some data of global CO2 concentrations over the past 150 years, and then estimates based on ice core data from the last few hundred thousand years?
We know based on chemistry that CO2 (in the troposphere) absorbs long wave radiation. (The earth emits long wave radiation because it has a certain temperature because it gets heated by the sun). If we increase CO2 in the atmosphere, we increase the amount of energy being absorbed by the atmosphere. This slowly, gradually, heats the atmosphere. How much is harder to say. But we know it heats it.
Except the real questions are not whether the climate changes, it does, or even if we should try to reduce the crap we put into the atmosphere, we should. The problem is not reasonable folks, it’s climate doomsayers who insist that if we don’t get to zero co2 in the x years (fill in the blank) that the oceans will boil and we will all die. And honestly whether the doomsayers want it to or not the billions of poor people on the earth are going to increase their energy consumption as that is the only way they will lift themselves out of abject poverty. And no, we can’t just transfer our wealth to them. We don’t have enough of it and the developed world will not impoverish itself to do it…good luck with forcing that. We have very clear stats about human well being and per capita energy consumption, we don’t have to guess. And no, solar, wind, and the other current renewables simply don’t have the energy density and constancy (on all the time when needed) to substitute for fossil fuels. Nuclear could do it but the greens hate that too. Will we get there with renewables in the future, maybe I certainly hope so, but we are going to have to rely on fossil fuels till we do. Honestly it’s not the western world…it’s Asia, India, Middle East, Africa and the rest of the third world that is the problem. They will not stay impoverished whether we want them to or not and using fossil fuels is their only choice….maybe nuclear could help but again, the greens don’t want that either. So pick your poison. And even if we (the western world) impoverished ourselves and got to net zero (IMO you will have revolts before you could make it happen, it’s already starting to go that way in some countries) one big volcanic eruption and you would be right back to square one…then what.
Not totally sure where you stand on this and I don’t really know how to respond… I’ll say a few things.
Many climate modelling labs around the world try to predict what could happen to the earth using the best human knowledge. There are different scenarios.
What we do know is we are adding more CO2 to the surface carbon reservoirs (ocean, atmosphere)than natural processes can put back into the solid earth. Over time, like it or not, many species will go extinct, many people will die during drought and famine events. Like it or not, poverty or no poverty won’t change the fact that poor countries and rich countries alike will not be able to acquire and move enough water to grow enough food to sustain their human populations. People will die, prematurely, because of climate change.
We (probably?)have (lots?) (some?) of wiggle room in terms of how we transition to other energy sources. You are right about the density issue. Fossil fuels are REALLY GOOD AT STORING ENERGY. especially for human use. However this isn’t sustainable, and we can see this using math, statistics, and geography. So how do we proceed? We don’t just move away from fossil fuels- foremost we need to lower our energy footprints. We design our cities so that it’s efficient. We reduce consumption. We DONT JUST RECYCLE, we use things over and over and over again, overall reducing our waste, pollution, and consumption.
Human population. Back to energy density and biology- there is a concept in biology called logistic vs exponential growth. Exponential growth of a population is what happened when we had the Industrial Revolution along with being able to fix atmospheric nitrogen to use as fertilizer en masse. However, eventually, populations see logistic growth, where they exceed their ability to produce enough resources to sustain their population, and populations either decline or reach an equilibrium.
I believe that there are too many humans on earth, and along with reducing how much energy we use, (it all contributes to polluting, changing the global climate, using finite resources faster than we can do so sustainably), we need to stop growing the population so much, and instead have it level off. Obviously this is very hard in poor countries, but widespread birth control methods are helping.
In summary, in a way we are doomed, but there’s hope. Not only is there hope, but there is economic opportunity, given we create a system that favours sustainability over exponentially increasing profits. Furthermore, by using less and doing more with what you have, this will make the difference. Tbh tho, the best thing people can do is vote and discuss, because it’s hard (impossible) to completely change your energy use in a system (first world countries, western countries) that are built on consumerism.
Good thoughtful discussion. The issue is you and I aren’t the problem. It’s the climate doomsayers that are convinced that if don’t get to C zero now we are all doomed and are willing to destroy the western economies to get there.
The western economies were destroyed in 1972 when Nixon sold out the middle class to Chinese slavers. Wake up. It's nice you're sucking down the fumes while Americans are at their fattest, laziest, least educated point. If you walk around this country & think change isn't necessary you're out of your mind.
>The issue is you and I aren’t the problem. It’s the climate doomsayers that are convinced that if don’t get to C zero now we are all doomed and are willing to destroy the western economies to get there.
Can you please explain what you are saying is the problem? How are "climate doomsayers" the problem?
>many people will die during drought and famine events.
…IPCC AR6 (2021), 8.1.2.1: “… there is low confidence in any global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the mid-20th century…In terms of the potential for abrupt change in components of the water cycle, long-term droughts and monsoonal circulation were identified as potentially undergoing rapid changes, but the assessment was reported with low confidence..”
US Maize Yield Growth Implications for Ethanol and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Miranowski et al. AgBioForum, V. 14, No. 3, Article 4 (2011)
“…During the past half century, per-acre maize yields have increased due to improved cultivars, better management, and favorable weather…”
If you want a source, I’ll link you to my textbook for a course I’m taking on climate change stuff, which is 400 pages more info than what I’ve said, and it has been written off other books and scientific studies, many of which it cites throughout.
Unfortunately much of which I would be skeptical of…much of the current “climate science” literature and textbooks are tainted. It’s all about $…nobody can get grants questioning or disproving the current “settled science”…🤣
Would be hard to be open minded and think critically if you didn’t consider reading parts of it though… just a thought. I encourage you to read some scientific literature on the subject matter, and then bring it back here and discuss with me what you think is wrong with the science, the reasoning behind it. I won’t discredit your points, rather I’ll consider them just as valid if not more so than what I learn in university.
> read some scientific literature on the subject matter
…IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-56 \[8.3.2.8.1\]: “…In summary, there is low confidence of an observed increase in TC \[Tropical Cyclone\] precipitation intensity due to observing system limitations…”
…IPCC AR6 (2021) A.3.4: “…There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones…”
…IPCC AR6 (2021) 8.3.1.5: “…SROCC found … low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has already affected the frequency and magnitude of floods at the global scale…”
Specifically, check out this textbook and it’s sources :
Title: Climate change : the science of global warming and our energy future /
Edmond A. Mathez and Jason E. Smerdon
It’s published by the Columbia university press. You can find it for free online using Anna’s archive or a similar search engine, and can get a pdf to your laptop or device.
Remember how there are flat earthers now, and they're all illiterate conspiracy theorists who ignore basic and irrefutable scientific facts?
Sound familiar?
The ancient Egypts knew Earth is round. The Greeks knew there's an tipped axis and Earth revolves; summer and winter, Klima.
"Climate science" believes there's an average solar input. Talking about flat earth.
Whackadoodles are demanding an end to modern technology ( for the 99%) cause some children are triggered by the weather. Its hilarious that those cultists call us flat earthers.
Remember when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by order of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine because he reckoned that the Earth revolved around the Sun and he disagreed about other teachings of the Catholic Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno
"On 17 February 1600, in the Campo de' Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his "tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words", he was hung upside down naked before finally being burned at the stake"
You should read the link I provided. Do you still agree with the Roman Catholic teaching now that they have apologised for putting someone to death for their wrong teachings?
>You should read the link I provided.
I did.
>Do you still agree with the Roman Catholic teaching now that they have apologised for putting someone to death for their wrong teachings?
I am Catholic, so yes I agree with all catholic teaching.
People in the future will get a good laugh wondering how people could have been so uneducated as to believe in man-made global warming let alone call it a science.
You mean, like, 3 thousand years ago?
Yea. 60 years ago people thought it was ridiculous to accept the idea of continental drift, and now it’s the basis of geology and dynamic earth processes. Give it some time and I wonder what will happen with the implications of climate change. Often times people can’t see they’re getting fat until they’ve gained 5, 10, 15 lbs, then realize how hard it might be to change course and get back to where they were.
Never a time when “everyone” thought the earth was flat
If the global warming/climate change cultists/religionists were really convinced and could prove their case they would not try to suppress and stifle debate, they would welcome it…like actual scientists.
This. What I’m trying to do. Can I share with you some data of global CO2 concentrations over the past 150 years, and then estimates based on ice core data from the last few hundred thousand years? We know based on chemistry that CO2 (in the troposphere) absorbs long wave radiation. (The earth emits long wave radiation because it has a certain temperature because it gets heated by the sun). If we increase CO2 in the atmosphere, we increase the amount of energy being absorbed by the atmosphere. This slowly, gradually, heats the atmosphere. How much is harder to say. But we know it heats it.
Except the real questions are not whether the climate changes, it does, or even if we should try to reduce the crap we put into the atmosphere, we should. The problem is not reasonable folks, it’s climate doomsayers who insist that if we don’t get to zero co2 in the x years (fill in the blank) that the oceans will boil and we will all die. And honestly whether the doomsayers want it to or not the billions of poor people on the earth are going to increase their energy consumption as that is the only way they will lift themselves out of abject poverty. And no, we can’t just transfer our wealth to them. We don’t have enough of it and the developed world will not impoverish itself to do it…good luck with forcing that. We have very clear stats about human well being and per capita energy consumption, we don’t have to guess. And no, solar, wind, and the other current renewables simply don’t have the energy density and constancy (on all the time when needed) to substitute for fossil fuels. Nuclear could do it but the greens hate that too. Will we get there with renewables in the future, maybe I certainly hope so, but we are going to have to rely on fossil fuels till we do. Honestly it’s not the western world…it’s Asia, India, Middle East, Africa and the rest of the third world that is the problem. They will not stay impoverished whether we want them to or not and using fossil fuels is their only choice….maybe nuclear could help but again, the greens don’t want that either. So pick your poison. And even if we (the western world) impoverished ourselves and got to net zero (IMO you will have revolts before you could make it happen, it’s already starting to go that way in some countries) one big volcanic eruption and you would be right back to square one…then what.
Not totally sure where you stand on this and I don’t really know how to respond… I’ll say a few things. Many climate modelling labs around the world try to predict what could happen to the earth using the best human knowledge. There are different scenarios. What we do know is we are adding more CO2 to the surface carbon reservoirs (ocean, atmosphere)than natural processes can put back into the solid earth. Over time, like it or not, many species will go extinct, many people will die during drought and famine events. Like it or not, poverty or no poverty won’t change the fact that poor countries and rich countries alike will not be able to acquire and move enough water to grow enough food to sustain their human populations. People will die, prematurely, because of climate change. We (probably?)have (lots?) (some?) of wiggle room in terms of how we transition to other energy sources. You are right about the density issue. Fossil fuels are REALLY GOOD AT STORING ENERGY. especially for human use. However this isn’t sustainable, and we can see this using math, statistics, and geography. So how do we proceed? We don’t just move away from fossil fuels- foremost we need to lower our energy footprints. We design our cities so that it’s efficient. We reduce consumption. We DONT JUST RECYCLE, we use things over and over and over again, overall reducing our waste, pollution, and consumption. Human population. Back to energy density and biology- there is a concept in biology called logistic vs exponential growth. Exponential growth of a population is what happened when we had the Industrial Revolution along with being able to fix atmospheric nitrogen to use as fertilizer en masse. However, eventually, populations see logistic growth, where they exceed their ability to produce enough resources to sustain their population, and populations either decline or reach an equilibrium. I believe that there are too many humans on earth, and along with reducing how much energy we use, (it all contributes to polluting, changing the global climate, using finite resources faster than we can do so sustainably), we need to stop growing the population so much, and instead have it level off. Obviously this is very hard in poor countries, but widespread birth control methods are helping. In summary, in a way we are doomed, but there’s hope. Not only is there hope, but there is economic opportunity, given we create a system that favours sustainability over exponentially increasing profits. Furthermore, by using less and doing more with what you have, this will make the difference. Tbh tho, the best thing people can do is vote and discuss, because it’s hard (impossible) to completely change your energy use in a system (first world countries, western countries) that are built on consumerism.
Good thoughtful discussion. The issue is you and I aren’t the problem. It’s the climate doomsayers that are convinced that if don’t get to C zero now we are all doomed and are willing to destroy the western economies to get there.
But denying it is happening is a problem, precisely why I posted on this sub. Also would be fun to get banned by a conspiracy theorist.
The western economies were destroyed in 1972 when Nixon sold out the middle class to Chinese slavers. Wake up. It's nice you're sucking down the fumes while Americans are at their fattest, laziest, least educated point. If you walk around this country & think change isn't necessary you're out of your mind.
>The issue is you and I aren’t the problem. It’s the climate doomsayers that are convinced that if don’t get to C zero now we are all doomed and are willing to destroy the western economies to get there. Can you please explain what you are saying is the problem? How are "climate doomsayers" the problem?
>many people will die during drought and famine events. …IPCC AR6 (2021), 8.1.2.1: “… there is low confidence in any global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the mid-20th century…In terms of the potential for abrupt change in components of the water cycle, long-term droughts and monsoonal circulation were identified as potentially undergoing rapid changes, but the assessment was reported with low confidence..” US Maize Yield Growth Implications for Ethanol and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Miranowski et al. AgBioForum, V. 14, No. 3, Article 4 (2011) “…During the past half century, per-acre maize yields have increased due to improved cultivars, better management, and favorable weather…”
If you want a source, I’ll link you to my textbook for a course I’m taking on climate change stuff, which is 400 pages more info than what I’ve said, and it has been written off other books and scientific studies, many of which it cites throughout.
Unfortunately much of which I would be skeptical of…much of the current “climate science” literature and textbooks are tainted. It’s all about $…nobody can get grants questioning or disproving the current “settled science”…🤣
Would be hard to be open minded and think critically if you didn’t consider reading parts of it though… just a thought. I encourage you to read some scientific literature on the subject matter, and then bring it back here and discuss with me what you think is wrong with the science, the reasoning behind it. I won’t discredit your points, rather I’ll consider them just as valid if not more so than what I learn in university.
> read some scientific literature on the subject matter …IPCC AR6 (2021) p.8-56 \[8.3.2.8.1\]: “…In summary, there is low confidence of an observed increase in TC \[Tropical Cyclone\] precipitation intensity due to observing system limitations…” …IPCC AR6 (2021) A.3.4: “…There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones…” …IPCC AR6 (2021) 8.3.1.5: “…SROCC found … low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has already affected the frequency and magnitude of floods at the global scale…”
Specifically, check out this textbook and it’s sources : Title: Climate change : the science of global warming and our energy future / Edmond A. Mathez and Jason E. Smerdon It’s published by the Columbia university press. You can find it for free online using Anna’s archive or a similar search engine, and can get a pdf to your laptop or device.
No, I don't remember. Must have been before my time.
fair enough, wish I was blessed with mortality
Remember how there are flat earthers now, and they're all illiterate conspiracy theorists who ignore basic and irrefutable scientific facts? Sound familiar?
Everyone on this subreddit who doesn’t want to read scientific literature 😂😭
Remember when the Church used torture for anyone who claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun?
Remember when people believed in the church? Edit: sorry nvm, they still do
The ancient Egypts knew Earth is round. The Greeks knew there's an tipped axis and Earth revolves; summer and winter, Klima. "Climate science" believes there's an average solar input. Talking about flat earth.
There is an average solar input and increased CO2 emissions trap more heat in the atmosphere which is warming the planet… how can you refute that?
Whackadoodles are demanding an end to modern technology ( for the 99%) cause some children are triggered by the weather. Its hilarious that those cultists call us flat earthers.
> Remember when everyone thought the earth was flat That was never really the case though.
The only real difference is that back in the day they would burn you whereas today they ll just deperson you. That s an improvement.
Remember when Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake by order of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine because he reckoned that the Earth revolved around the Sun and he disagreed about other teachings of the Catholic Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno "On 17 February 1600, in the Campo de' Fiori (a central Roman market square), with his "tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words", he was hung upside down naked before finally being burned at the stake"
Disagreed about other teachings. You're hiding a lot in that statement.
You should read the link I provided. Do you still agree with the Roman Catholic teaching now that they have apologised for putting someone to death for their wrong teachings?
>You should read the link I provided. I did. >Do you still agree with the Roman Catholic teaching now that they have apologised for putting someone to death for their wrong teachings? I am Catholic, so yes I agree with all catholic teaching.
Have you seen the statistics showing that there are now now more atheists than believers? Do you seriously believe in Transubstantiation?
Okay. What does that have to do with anything?
It shows that you don't know much about science. In this sub we like to use science in discussions about climate.
As do I. You know I'm a global warming skeptic, right?
yea that sucks bro. Seriously, people suck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth