What Do You Think About Climate Change?

[Simonsays]

What do you think about climate change?

This is the RPF, what answers were you expecting Ole?

 

[pepzorpdorp]

This is the RPF, what answers were you expecting Ole?

I was kinda hoping to have different views on this. I hope people dont blindly believe just cause Ray favor Co2. I think that is the opposite of what Ray practice, and just not blindly believe something because of an authority, and many here (me included) views Ray as an authority. But then again, what the hell do I know?

 

[DaveFoster]

Either way heating up or not people need to stop consuming so much crap and then dumping them in the ocean and nature in general,we need better packaging.

True, although cardboard isn't too offensive to the environment.

Maybe a box with a sheet cover, rather than a box within a box.

 

[Drareg]

True, although cardboard isn't too offensive to the environment.

Maybe a box with a sheet cover, rather than a box within a box.

Reusable boxes,send them back once unpackaged,free of charge, all big corporates like dhl,FedEx,Apple etc will be cool,with these small fees as they are the ones desiring change for planet earth.
Hypocrites,designers and engineers galore and they can't come up with better packing or just do the above.

Apple send you the MacBook Pro ,you take it out and send the boxes and everything side back free of charge.

I'm guessing recycling facilties will have a huge carbon footprint soon as more of the open up,they run on fossil fuels, Jesus can't be bothered to come back,we are too stupid,he's heading to the andromeda galaxy instead,it's a mess.

 

[tara]

What happened to global warming?

Some people who didn't understand what it meant got confused by the term, and thought it was disproved when their little patch got cold one day or week.
Global warming (average) means increased energy in the weather systems which leads to global climate change (which can vary in local effects).

but the polar ice caps are melting at a rapid rate, thus contributing to the warming up of our oceans

AIUI, the polar icecaps are melting and raising the sea level. Not sure that the melting ice raises water temps. The warming seas expand and raise sea level.
Anyone notice hurricane Katrina and it's successors?
Increase wild-fire destruction?
Heat waves and freezes?
Aware of the number of islands becoming submerged as sea level rises?
Ocean acidification?
Coral bleaching? (You now coral reefs are important nurseries for the worlds fish populations?)
Radically retreating glaciers?
All these predicted effects of GW/GCC are measurably occurring already - it's not just a speculation about the future.

Whatever ewe do from here, further warming is inevitable.

The people who will suffer most from global climate change as it occurs are disproportionately brown and poor. Already are.
Just because Obama or Gore or someone you dislike have mentioned global climate change, doesn't discredit all the science confirming that it is happening.
But did you notice that it's been scientists and grass roots organisations that have been pushing for a long time to address this issue, and the politicians have been very reluctant to move on it at all?

The questions are,
- can humans change habits quickly enough on a global scale to limit the warming to <less than 1.5 C (not likely, but required to protect a number of island states), 2C (current official goal, maybe possible, but not on the current track), or before it hits irreversible tipping points that mean it will accelerate unstoppably to levels incompatible with continuation of human civilisation or even of human life (maybe possible, but there is uncertainty about exactly where the point of no return is).

a lot easier than talking about over population which is going to be the big issue for humans moving forward.

Imagine the population issues getting any easier as fertile lowlands and river mouth cities start to get inundated?

people need to stop consuming so much crap and then dumping them in the ocean and nature in general

+1

Rarely do you see it discussed about whether or not climate change might actually be a good thing rather than a bad thing.

There is plenty of serious discussion of likely consequences of all kinds. Some places may get at least temporary benefits of some kinds. SOem places will get more precipitaion, some less. There will be some areas that will probably get increased plant growth. However, the overall trend is disruption of ecosystems, including ones we rely on for food.

I am pretty darn sure that climate change is man made,

I find the evidence convincing on that too.

CO2 is not the only relevant metric

Agreed. Methane and other greenhouse gases are more potent, though less volumous.
Thawing the condensed subterranean and submarine methane stores doesn't look like a great idea to me. Keeping soil structures intact and rebuilding them look like a likely crucial component of a good solution.

I'm most concerned about the radioactivity footprint. How utterly irresponsible, stupid and unethical it is to be releasing all of that virtually permanent toxicity.

This looks like a major problem to me too. Very short-sighted and shows little care for future generations.
To add to the mix, who would you want to be relying on to ensure appropriate storage of nuclear waste and safe functioning of nuclear power stations in low lying areas if the water level rises, or hurricanes or storm surges get more violent? How far into the future? I think they had to shut down at least one for rising flood waters in the US a year or two ago.

As to carbon dioxide and human health, it looks to me as though the planet would undergo the kind of disruption that would make it uninhabitable to humans for other reasons long before we would notice any health improvements from the increased level of CO2 in the air. Because the atmospheric CO2 levels are very low from this PoV, and the main thing that influences our internal CO2 levels wrt the air we breathe is our breathing rate.

 

[lvysaur]

I've not really looked into global warming at all.

Solar energy technologies will likely be huge in the future, irrespective of global warming.

 

[walker_in_aus]

I have no idea why on earth people think Climate Change is a conspiracy. What, a conspiracy to stop the wealthiest people in the world who control oil/coal from continuing to make $$ off us whilst sh***ing all over our backyard?

 

[aquaman]

I have no idea why on earth people think Climate Change is a conspiracy. What, a conspiracy to stop the wealthiest people in the world who control oil/coal from continuing to make $$ off us whilst sh***ing all over our backyard?

Ha! Good point.

 

[Queequeg]

I have no idea why on earth people think Climate Change is a conspiracy. What, a conspiracy to stop the wealthiest people in the world who control oil/coal from continuing to make $$ off us whilst sh***ing all over our backyard?

Because money is just a means to an end. Money is a driving force only if you are poor.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken,1921

 

[d1d2]

This film was better by far than 'Before the Flood' for showing climate change: Chasing Ice | See the Film.

 

[Queequeg]

KMUD: 1-15-16 Water Quality, Atmospheric CO2, And Climate Change 28:00
I find it very interesting that we all trust in RP's ability as a scientist and his opinion on a variety of subjects except when his analysis contradicts one of our own deeply held personal beliefs.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Climate change is real. Man made climate change is a hoax.

 

[Kyle M]

CO2 is not a very effective green house gas, anyone with the patience to read through this excellent paper would get the needed info as well as juicy commentary on the state of so-called climate science: Full text of "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"

 

[lollipop]

CO2 is not a very effective green house gas, anyone with the patience to read through this excellent paper would get the needed info as well as juicy commentary on the state of so-called climate science: Full text of "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"

Interesting paper @Kyle M. Good Share. So many in this climate change field are relying on models and computer modeling. Physics was designed as an observational science. Somewhere along the way, mathematical modeling took over.

 

[d1d2]

Here is a peer review of the paper noted above.

CLIMATE GUY: Peer criticism -- REVISED version of Rancourt radiation physics paper

 

[pepzorpdorp]

KMUD: 1-15-16 Water Quality, Atmospheric CO2, And Climate Change 28:00
I find it very interesting that we all trust in RP's ability as a scientist and his opinion on a variety of subjects except when his analysis contradicts one of our own deeply held personal beliefs.

What do you mean?

 

[Soren]

I think it's propaganda for the twin goals of the state in aggrandizing more central control of individuals lives, and the environmentalists misanthropy.

Yep that pretty much sums it up.

 

[sladerunner69]

Climate Change is a giant crock of psuedo-scientific BS. The studies done to support the notion are remarkably shallow and biased, similar to the saturated fat=clogged arteries=heart attack studies that Ray Peat mentionned. Ray does is not swayed by the data on climate change himself.

Here is the truth to the best of my knowledge:
-The atmosphere is heating up, this is to be expected as the earth is in a "rising" temperature cycle as the last ice age only ended a few thousand years ago
-CO2 levels are being increased by human consumption
-CO2 levels have been decreasing for millions of years, and are in fact dwindling (this is not good)
-CO2 comprises less than 1% of atmospheric gasses
-"greenhouse gas effect" has been refuted by a few different independent academics
-"over 80% of climate scientists agree climate change is real" myth is a liberal lie based off of a survey of 400 pro-climate change scientists. The accurate number is around 30-40%

I believe it is quite likely the earth is being heated up by fossil fuels, but there is little evidence to say this is dangerous. There is far more evidence to say that the atmosphere NEEDS the increased CO2, as CO2 levels are set to be dangerously low in less than a millenia (relatively soon, could be problematic for the progression of human species)

 

[lollipop]

Climate Change is a giant crock of psuedo-scientific BS. The studies done to support the notion are remarkably shallow and biased, similar to the saturated fat=clogged arteries=heart attack studies that Ray Peat mentionned. Ray does is not swayed by the data on climate change himself.

Here is the truth to the best of my knowledge:
-The atmosphere is heating up, this is to be expected as the earth is in a "rising" temperature cycle as the last ice age only ended a few thousand years ago
-CO2 levels are being increased by human consumption
-CO2 levels have been decreasing for millions of years, and are in fact dwindling (this is not good)
-CO2 comprises less than 1% of atmospheric gasses
-"greenhouse gas effect" has been refuted by a few different independent academics
-"over 80% of climate scientists agree climate change is real" myth is a liberal lie based off of a survey of 400 pro-climate change scientists. The accurate number is around 30-40%

I believe it is quite likely the earth is being heated up by fossil fuels, but there is little evidence to say this is dangerous. There is far more evidence to say that the atmosphere NEEDS the increased CO2, as CO2 levels are set to be dangerously low in less than a millenia (relatively soon, could be problematic for the progression of human species)

Good post @sladerunner69

 

[aquaman]

If you go beyond the "is it caused by humans?" question, and on to "what can we do about it?", that becomes a better question. I'm not extensively read, but it seems most people accept that the earth is warming as a rate faster than ever?

The question really becomes - can humans thrive with sea levels and temperatures significantly higher given our propensity to live in coastal areas?

It's not just the immediate impact on those effected in low-lying areas, but the enormous amount of shift of resources that would have to happen if temps and sea levels do rise as predicted with a +2 rise from pre-industrial times. THen it's the impact on all investment - doomsday prophesies would become much more prevalent if we start to have to move out of entire areas which were once heavily populated. What's the point of investing if our lives are upside down, if the "judgement days" are upon us etc.

If temperatures do continue to rise, and water evaporates more, you'll probably see wars over water as eg the Himalayas melt and India and Pakistan (nuclear armed) run out of water to support their 1.5 billion+ population.

So. Is it worth shifting to things that can help reduce temperature, even if it's not caused by, or partially caused by, humans? Maybe we put up huge reflective barriers across ice areas and desert areas to reflect heat??

For me, when Big oil spends billions on lobbying and buys off scientists to put their names to papers written by the oil companies, it seems they know something

There are many gases relevant - water, CO2, methane, etc etc: Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas | New Scientist

This article says that the amount of water vapour in upper atmosphere is due to double within 80 years:

"Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise.

This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – there is great uncertainty about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing."