There is (Almost) No Hope to Avert a World-Wide Climate Disaster
I find it hard to read realistic analyses of climate change. Every few months environmental conditions and world-wide practices are reviewed. Every report is worse than the one before. Back a few years there was a range of possible outcomes, minimal change to disastrous. According to the numbers coming, it will be disastrous.
A well-known writer in the New York Times, Elizabeth Kolbert, reviewed current and projected circumstances. She first goes through public statements from various officials such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The theme of these statements is, "Let's be optimistic. We can do this." We voters like to hear this. We even like to say it ourselves to each other.
Each year more carbon is dumped into the atmosphere. To get the carbon numbers down to a less harmful level is theoretically possible, but in practice it is probably impossible. The coming climate change will force massive relocation of humans and other changes that are unthinkable.
We have all heard there are outdoor temperatures that make most human life impossible. It is temps in the range of 105 to 110 F with high humidity. There are already deaths attributed to hot weather and large areas headed there. Food production will be altered.
We know there have been huge swings in temperatures in world history. All evidence tells us these changes took place over long periods of time. Humans moved. Plants and animals adapted through natural selection. The change took place at walking speed. Today change is at the speed of a jet airplane.
Carbon in the atmosphere is what has made the climate change faster. It's popular to say "But, what about the change to electric vehicles? Won't that help reduce the carbon that is contributing to the warming?'
Massive wind and solar can be built in where the population is less dense. The problem is it needs to be transmitted to urban areas where people live. At the present time there many states that will not permit this power to move across their boundaries. That solution is not available at this time. We can't say for certain it will ever be available.
Eight billion people forced into smaller and smaller areas is simply inevitable and not a happy thing to contemplate.
you have probably noticed that I have not, for some time, commented on your posts. nor have others: obviously you have gotten boring, really boring. this one, however, is over the top: full of the hype that has "turned off" many folks to the whole climate thing. or worse, have come to see the global warming business as a plot on the part of a global elite to gain control over the stupid masses. pity. anyway, as you may remember, I have taken the climate change issue quite serious: have looked into the claims of both sides, have tried, not always succesfully, to understand the complexity of climate science. my computer is filled with Mn climate data stretching back from various points in the 19th century, including a record kept at Ft Snelling Mn dating back to 1820. these records do show a warming trend but with ups and downs at various intervals: very cold 1840s to about 1870. cold again, 1880s-1890s. warming about 1900 to about 1950. cooling again, 1950s to about 1985. accelerating warmth, 2000 to present.
ReplyDeletenow whether all this can be blamed on increases in atmospheric CO2 is an open question. some of the more recent warming may, ironically, may be attributable to pollution control efforts begun in the 1970s. less gunk the air, more sunlight reaching the earth. such views are, of course, speculative. as are many of the political, journalistic brain storms bantered about these days. and don't forget, there are folks like Al Gore, Bill Gates and others who see every hurricane, flood, heat wave, etc. as evidence of an incipient disaster. I'ii subside now, probably wasted too much time writing this: cut into my Sunday afternoon nap time.
Anonymous "...full of hype..." We, or at least I, have never heard of an explanation for the speed of climate change other than the one put forward by credentialed science. It is carbon. If you come across another explanation please post it here.
DeleteAnd while you are at the task of self-improvement, perhaps you could provide some other explanation for you dislike of climate change concern other than that you dislike Al Gore, Sanger and Gates. Your dislike for them adds nothing to your case--wait, you don't have a case or argument as to why this climate change is taking place faster than any in the past.
while I'm at it, got to get in another dig. noted that Margaret Sanger is included in a list of notable freethinkers: eugenics extremist, friend of the KKK, racist, the list goes on.
ReplyDeleteCO2 is increasing, therefore global warming. remember correlation is not necessarily causation. don't like Sanger? yes and for good reason. do you like Sanger? as to Gore, Gates and the like (AOC also comes to mind): no I don't like them because I think that they are fools. as usual, you claim to have certainty on your side. some people are skeptics and are willing to admit it. I thought that "freethinkers" were supposed to be skeptical. BTW do you remember the folks who, in the 1960s, thought we were entering a new Ice Age? and, no I don't have any off-the-top explation for global warming: I just think that the jury is still out.
Deleteyou resort once again to bass ackward logic to make what you consider to be a valid rebuttal. allow me, then, to point out that I dislike people like Gore et al because of their respective worldviews,not the other way 'round (as you would have it). as in abortion is a religious matter, not because religious people happen to oppose it on reasoned grounds. neat ploys if you can get people to accept it as gospel.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous-- "...I dislike people like Gore et al because...."
DeleteClever rascal you are--always avoid addressing the issue at hand, the important one, and discuss your personal dislike of various celebrities. While trying my patience, I'll go over the issue one more time: THE ISSUE IS HOW FAST CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING. Every credentialed person in the world agrees it is happening faster than ever before. The only variable that has changed, at least the only known one (it's always in almost every scientific question possible there are other variable not known at any particular moment in time.) is the carbon in the atmosphere. I'll ask you this one more time to tell us if you have some other explanation. If you do not, then the argument is over.
That is, of course, unless you want to discuss forever your personal opinion of various celebrities.
yes the argument is over, that's one of the reasons why you get few comments on your posts. with you the argument is over before it begins. Happy Holidays.
DeleteAnonymous--I don't understand you. I published everything you wrote. I gave you an opportunity to present a case that climate change is not happening faster than ever before as climate experts say is the case. After all that you think I'm unfair. It's a bit hard to please you.
DeleteI didn't say that you were unfair (at least in the sense of not giving me air time). it's just that you are sooo dogmatic.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous "It's just that you are sooo dogmatic." Is it dogmatic to present facts and argue for their use? As President John Adams said when he was an attorney defending a British soldier, "Facts are stubborn things."
DeleteWe have in the case of climate change two facts. One is from studying ancient evidence. This climate is changing faster than have previous changes in climate. The climate events may be more dramatic than those in ancient times. The other is there is only one known variable that has changed, the amount of man-made carbon. There were, according to evidence, large natural carbon events in the past. The carbon now piling up in the atmosphere is coming from man. Owning up to this is good citizenship.
You are correct, I am sooo dogmatic about this because I want future humans to be alive and healthy. I wish I could interest you in these facts.
strong words those. but I fear that you are in trouble on this one. as ar as I know, there is no reason to believe that recent climate trends are more dramatic or rapid than many of the ones that occurred in the past. for example consider the rapid change that took place In Europe in the early years of the 14th century. or the sudden and radical Younger-Dryas event. the list goes on. in my view,then, there is no reason to support the claims that you make in your post . seems then that there are your "facts" and my "facts". ne'er the twain shall meet. sad. BTW did you know that Sanger condemned abortion. maybe because she really believed it was evil or because it was simply too hot to handle in the public forum of the time. whatever. besides PP , as late as the mid-1960s, disavowed it.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous -- "as far as I know, there is no reason to believe recent climate trends are more dramatic or rapid than the many ones that occurred in the past."
DeleteI can help you with that. It took 10 seconds to find. Put your cursor on this and click:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Your references always seem to be about recorded temps. The scientists who study this look at the rate of change in periods long before recorded temps. A record exists in geology. Neither of us is in this field so we are left to trust those who are. So far as I know, no credentialed scientist argues with the findings the climate is now changing more rapidly than any time in the last 10,000 plus years. The only known variable (cause) is the huge volume of carbon.
Our own region experienced a big change about 10,000 years ago when the Red River Valley was just a pile of ice. Since lots of water was here there was less other places. Humans moved out of our area to adjust--a tribe in Nova Scotia claims it had people here.
The case climate change is happening more rapidly has been made for decades and no opposing view has made even a small dent in it. I'd encourage you to learn about it.
Just to lighten things up a bit:
DeleteThanks Jon and tsm for the exchange of opinions on climate change. Sure the wealthy seaside property owners may be affected. Miami Beach high rises may topple over. But there can be small and subtle effects to these changes. For example, take the diminishing sperm motility and enlarging feet of North Dakota’s Flickertails. Perhaps a blessing to farmers and ranchers. Let’s hope such effects don’t find there way to the states’ human animal population. Or maybe not. Our shoe sizes would be “legendary”.
https://phys.org/news/2022-11-squirrel-sperm-feet-climate-story.html
Ardy B--Could it be bigfoot was a childless human male. We've never seen Bigfoot Jr.
DeleteThere are alarms that human sperm counts are falling. It's common to attribute consumption of plastics or other environmental variables as the cause. It appears there is some question as to whether it is happening and, if so, what the cause is.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-sperm-count-decreasing-massively-1763537
just now ran across an item that I think may be of interest to someone on the CO2 bandwagon. look up a read a scientific paper written by MIT professor Dr Robert Lindzer.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--re: Dr. Robert Lindzer-- As while back this guy charged the coal industry $2,700 a day for his consulting services. He traveled to DC to testify, travel expenses paid by the Western Fuels group. A well publicized speech against global warming was funded by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. A while back he campaigned against smoking bans because he thought the link between smoking and lung cancer was weak. Subsequently, smoking decreased and so did lung cancer. This is a guy bought and paid for by polluters.
ReplyDeleteOh sure, ignore his arguments because he was "bought and paid for by the polluters". apart from that does he have any arguments that s/b taken seriously. and how about folks like Al Gore? he seems to be a shill for the environmentalist crowd. but does he have any arguments that should be taken seriously. obviously you think that he does, his handlers nothwithstanding. polluters bad, extremist environmentalists good. you may be right in thinking that the MIT fellow's stuff is suspect but to write him off as a compromised shill?
ReplyDeleteWhat Lindzer's claims have been so strongly refuted they aren't worth anyone's time to mention. But, I do some of it. HIS CLAIM ONE: Temperatures show no trend upwards. REPLY BY SCIENTISTS: National Oceanic Center of Environmental Information in 2015 published a study showing temperatures have risen more in the past 15 years than in the last half century. Average temperatures have risen at twice the rate of the last half century. 12% of the earth is hotter than it ever has been. This paper has not been refuted. HIS CLAIM TWO: Carbon dioxide will affect the temperature very little. REPLY BY SCIENCE: There is no other explanation for the temperature rise except the tons of carbon dioxide. HIS CLAIM THREE: Scientists do not agree temps are rising or that carbon dioxide is the cause. REPLY BY SCIENCE: 97% of papers submitted to referred science journals are for the purpose of laying out the scientific case for rising temps.
DeleteAnonymous -- Instead of bring up Al Gore every time we discuss climate change, it would be more productive to actually read up on the topic. It turns out you are completely wrong.
DeleteI am completely wrong. implying, of course, that you are completely right. way togo old chap! why do I bring up Al Gore? well, because he is the chief charatan on the climate crisis team. but there are others like AOC, Bill Gates (who thought that we should seed the stratosphere with chalk dust), and His Majesty the climate czar, John Kerry. sorry old fella but I don't think that CO2 alone explains every climate anomaly that we are now seeing or have seen in the past. the head of NASA has recently said as much. and I certainly don't deny that we are getting warmer. and I certainly think that there are some pluses to a warming climate. nor do I think that we would much enjoy the kind of weather that this area experienced, say, in the 1850s. so let's end it. there is no point that someone who is completely wrong has anything to say to someone who is completely right.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous--"...I don't this CO2 alone explains every climate change anomaly..."
DeleteThat is of course correct. As noted several times here climates have changed before man made CO2. Your Lindzer guy refused to acknowledge cigarettes cause cancer and refuses to acknowledge man made CO2 causes climate change. The two cause and effect cases are very similar. There is no explanation for exactly how smoking triggers growth of cancer cells. There are plenty of people who smoke a lot and don't cancer. Others get lung cancer and don't smoke. Thus, we have only a statistical relationship, not the kind of "proof" some require. Smoking is not the only variable that can cause lung cancer. Yet, it is foolish to think there is no relationship between the two. I had two friends in Fargo who both smoked a lot and complained constantly about limits as to where they could smoke. Both said the proof was not there. Both are dead from lung cancer.
Climate change and CO 2 are just like that. We don't have the ability to measure the physical change in temperatures due to CO 2. All we have is measurement of the rate of temp rise and the amount of CO 2 going into the atmosphere. We know of no other variables that could contribute to the speed of the change--though every scientist will admit there are sometimes variables we don't know about. While temperatures have changed since the beginning of time, they have never changed this fast. This latter is simply a fact. To me, anyone who flat out denies there is any relationship between CO 2 and the climate is like my two friends who died of lung cancer.