80 solutions to reverse global warming, ranked. Interesting.
Wow, theese proposals look dangerous.
Especially number 6, right? /s
I’m not sure what looks so dangerous to you about most of those.
Some are probably shortsighted and would need more thought about 2nd order effects, that’s true. I’m always worried when some clever guy with a degree goes like “these Asians don’t know how to farm rice, good thing we’re here to show them.” Can it be possible a hundred or so generations of farmers have figured out more than you over your summer internship?
Or the ignorant one about cooking on fires. “Traditional cooking practices also produce 2 to 5 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.” What these idiots didn’t consider was that of “wood, charcoal, animal dung, crop residues, and coal” only coal is a fossil fuel, the rest contain carbon just captured from the air. Not much CO2 reduction there.
However, there were plenty of great ideas as well, like the removal of wasteful practices such as air conditioning and wasteful food consumption, or switching to more sustainable (oftentimes formerly well established) methods of food production, cleaner energy production, switching to mass transit, and so on.
Since I think of CO2 as a food for plants and its impossible for me to think implementing (enforcing) those without the existence od global gowernment, I see bad intentions behind the purposals. Anyway it could be good for everybody to read it… critically.
I think of water as a great resource for fish and I’m still against flooding all land because there may be second order effects in play.
I see your problem. You equate those two. Frankly, that’s unwarranted both in the general and in the specific case. Some people just wanna fix the shit we’re objectively in and so they come up with ideas. Why assume evil intentions behind that is beyond me. That covers the general case.
How would you enforce particular ways of agriculture, education for women, a ban on wasting food: “no son, you must finish your dinner!” says the government—absurd much?
The things that need governance are things like protecting rainforests, forests, and we need laws against agricultural practices that damage the soil, produce food that may be dangerous to eat (such as when using carcinogenic pesticides) and other such things. These do belong to the government’s jobs as big corporations have a poor record in these areas, they often knowingly hide things (Ford Pinto, glyphosate, and so on). Interestingly, smaller communities with personal stake have always done those well so they wouldn’t be much affected by stricter regulations.
The problem isn’t that governments do too much, it’s that they don’t represent the people, they represent corporations. That’s why it’s important that people stand up and demand it from the government to regulate what corporations can do with our soil, our air, our water.
Nobody wants a “world government” though, that’s an idiotic idea, it goes directly against dealing efficiently with local issues, and I can’t understand where your idea that anybody who wants a global change wants it through a global government comes from. I can assure you, not many of us who care about this stuff have ever had that idea cross our minds.
Now I know where are you coming from and I have to say, in most questions, disagree I completely. The problem with this is to close this discussion soon, cause we are already in the wrong thread and we are getting into huge posts.
Mods, could you please transfer those few last posts into a separate thread?
Proposed thread name is: “Should we establish the global government to save the planet?”
My answer is strong “NO”! If you say yes and I believe you do, we can have fruitful discussion elsewhere.
I think his position was quite clear on that…
His last paragraph answered that question in my opinion.
Hell no. I was not and I would not discuss such an idiotic idea. Please at least take the minimal effort to look at the other’s stance before you respond.
Sorry for miserably reading you post and for following stupid puroposal. I was too quick to type.
Anyway, what is the topic you want to discuss? Do we disagree on if CO2 is bad?
What cought my atention in the @Fruico article was the CO2 and i hardly believe how it is possible you can measure the harmfullnes of activities by measuring CO2 emmisions. If you accept this kind of thinking and you are looking at the world where living = harmful and its really no-go for me to think this way.
No worries, I’m sorry for getting impatient. So, CO2.
I’m convinced CO2 at the amount we’re releasing it is harmful. There’s objective evidence that much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is of fossil origin (it’s trivial to determine due to its different isotopic composition) which means it’s coming from us, and there’s also objective evidence our climate is warming on a global scale and it’s directly due to (and in perfect agreement with) the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (see attached video below).
Moreover, this change is much faster than anything that ever happened since humans walk this planet. The rate of change is important because we have no experience about whether life on earth or human technology can adapt this fast without much loss; frankly, both are unlikely.
Earth’s climate is a complex nonlinear system and, as such, we can’t properly determine how such a rapid change in one of its fundamental parameters, the energy it contains, will affect it. What’s already likely is that it will go well beyond “trees will just grow a little faster” or similarly cute hopes. That our models have huge uncertainties just underlies how clueless we are about the potential scale of the consequences. We’re flying in the dark, and we’re flying fast.
According to the precautionary principle, if we can’t put a cap on the risks of our action (and, as shown, CO2 emissions at this scale are such a thing), economic considerations become meaningless in the face of potential ruin and the only sensible thing is to stop continuing the behavior that puts us under that risk:
So, while there are plenty of different types of pollutants that destroy our environment, most of those are localized issues. CO2, on the other hand, is messing with the weather system of our entire planet and, through that (and through the acidification of the oceans), our entire global ecosystem. That’s why it, and not other pollutants, are the primary concern.
The video I promised. Richard Muller is an astrophysicist who got fed up with climate change proponents when he had a look at some of the terrible ways the data was handled by them. So, he set out to prove they were wrong and founded Berkley Earth together with her daughter and other climate change skeptic physicists.
His mission was to come up with a model that uses all available data to compile the the best possible data set from it all in a statistically sound manner, adjusts it for all possible biases (volcanoes, solar activity, city vs countryside, and so on), and compute everything in a completely automated, repeatable and verifiable way.
Long story short, their model had a discrepancy compared to reality but when he finally added CO2 (they had to fit a single multiplier) everything fit perfectly. And that’s how Mr. Muller has turned from hero to arch enemy of the climate change denier camp overnight after he wrote this article: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.
I am really glad you expressed your position in such a clear and nice way.
The tendency is the amount of CO2 in the air is rising and I am willing to attribute all of the additional CO2 to humankind. According to my quick calculations, we raised the CO2 levels by 6% in the last 10 years, eg. 0,58% p.a. and rising. Are we in an agreement?
The trend of CO2 in the air is scary and if it’s really the main factor of earth temperature change, we should really do something rather quickly.
Yes, the change of CO2 in the atmosphere is rather quick.
Yes, and that’s exactly the reason why I think pointing out CO2 is the main factor of global warming is just mixing up correlation with causality. Yes, there is a huge correlation. Causality? Maybe, but my gut says no.
Precautionary principle… Ok, well… With this little evidence of assumed causality I don’t feel its good enough argument for justifying forcing somebody to go vegan or have fewer kids.
This is the big one and I completely agree. This is really caused by CO2 and its a problem to solve.
I need to dig deeper since this is just a short video saying basically “I found perfect causality between CO2 levels and global temperature.”. I really need to dig deeper to be able to make my own opinion on his research.
Anyway, what I do feel is overlooked is the fact that burning fossil fuels creates heat on itself. Let’s say we emit around 40 Gt of CO2 a year which if I calculate properly could mean we as people are releasing around 455 EJ (Exa Joule) of thermal energy a year just out of fosill fuels. Don’t you know somebody who tries to explain temperature development by the heat released from the fossil fuels? Is it nonsense to think that way?
Thank you too, @lubinew. Serious/scientific debate must first and foremost be clear and exact. I think it’s even more important than being “nice”. (I admire Linus Torvalds very much, even if he apparently isn’t very nice.)
I wrote a little comment in another thread in which I wanted to make the same point.
Interesting list but roof top solar and battery need to be #1. They are trying to preserve energy rent seeking. %13 of roof tops could replace all US energy per a Fuji engineer I spoke with some years ago. Need to look at blue planet cement processing.
Thanks for the reply. You’re on the right track until this point:
This is badly mistaken. It is one thing that we can’t reason about the behavior of a complex nonlinear system. It’s raising energy level though? Very easily measurable, not much uncertainty there.
As for the cause, as Richard Muller (again, an outspoken skeptic before he did his work!) stated , it’s not some weak correlation or something subtle, but we have a very strong argument that the raising temperature is directly attributable to the raising CO2 level in the atmosphere. Your gut may say something but there is hard evidence that screams otherwise and the causality has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and there’s a “debate” only once politicians, economists, and other vile beings get involved.
They at Berkley Earth tried to fit the discrepancy using different metrics, including population which could act as a proxy for the heat produced by fossil fuel consumption. None of it worked.
The thing that worked was atmospheric CO2 which removed any discrepancy by just adding a single parameter. If you’ve ever tried to fit a model on experimental data, you’d know just how rare it is to find such a simple solution and, with that, just how powerfully convincing it is. I can’t overstate how much we’re beyond any doubt that it is about the CO2.
I am open to Mr. Mueller arguments but I need to see more his work to make my own opinion. I will do it one time but unfortunately not now.
I know there is a very very very strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature, but causality? As far as I know, there is no consensus about this between scientist.
A week ago I just finished Taleb’s - Fooled by Randomness which influenced me a lot and there are things like: One can say we can predict very precisely the movement of stars based on our measurements of time. We can surely say there is a strong correlation between time and some events in the sky. It appears almost as if the time is some magical force which rotates things around.
Don’t take the last sentence as an attack against you, I just wanted to be funny and point out how easy it is to make huge logical mistakes.
Back to the core. Can you say when Richard Muller formulated his final model and for how long it already works? One thing I realize when looking into old models (30 - 15 years ago) predicting future problems, all of them I have seen become very wrong afterwords. It’s not such a problem to find the model explaining the history, but the future? Oh boy!
I’m not a natural scientist, but I guess I am a bit of a philosopher. I mentioned David Hume earlier, and he had some thoughts on causality as well. I personally wonder how many iterations of “very” there would have to be ahead of “strong correlation” for it to be sensible to assume causation. An empirical fact is not going to turn into a logical necessity or tautology, no matter how many “very:s” there are. At some point it just becomes practical, if nothing else, to assume causation, even if we can never have logical or mathematical proof in empirical matters.
Firstly, we have a) a well-known physical effect (CO2 traps heat) that suggests “some” warming is inevitable, b) CO2 data that shows its atmospheric levels have been rising, and c) temperature data that shows the warming has indeed been happening. Moreover, we also have shown d) strong linear correlation between the CO2 levels and the temperature (once other effects have been corrected for), the best possible situation we can hope for when having to interpret data.
Also, the study was done with the expectation that it would lead to falsifying the hypothesis of CO2-caused global warming, which lends some additional credibility to the study in the sense that we don’t need to be wary that the researches (consciously or unconsciously) may have mishandled the data to reach their desired result—they reached the opposite, and it made them reconsider their position.
All those considered, this is a very strong case where interpreting correlation as causation is well founded or, to look at it from the other way, it would need strong proof to the contrary for it to be considered falsified. It’s a bit like finding somebody with a bloody knife next to the corpse of his neighbor he had repeatedly threatened to kill.
Secondly, we wouldn’t even even need this many of “very” since the potential consequences are already known to be not only disastrous but also with unknown certainty about just how disastrous. It is a case when applying the precautionary principle is justified.
This may be true in many cases but we’re not talking about something mysterious or radical here. There is a simple and well understood physical process behind how CO2 affects Earth’s temperature and that it, together with water vapor, is responsible for keeping it warm enough for life as it is. This was known long before we recognized our production of CO2 has grown into a plausibly strong effect to change Earth’s climate. While anthropogenic global warming caused by our CO2 emissions has started out as a mere hypothesis, now we have all the evidence to say it’s actual reality.
As far as I understand, it’s not a model to predict, it’s a model to answer the question: “Once we account for all possible causes, can we explain the change of temperature?” We can’t without, but we have a good fit with, CO2.
The original NYT article is dated 2012. Since then, we’ve had 6 of the 7 hottest years since 1880 (the past 5 being the top 5, by the way).
They publish source, intermediary, and output versions of their data between 1753 and (as I see) about October 2013 here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/.
Again, we’re not talking about the complex effects, such as whether we’ll have bigger storms, worse droughts, or how much of the coastal lands will get flooded and when. You would be correct to say we have much uncertainty about these.
No, we’re talking about something very simple: energy. It’s about how much of the rise in Earth’s global average temperature since the industrial revolution is explained by the energy absorbed by the extra CO2 we’ve been stuffing the atmosphere with. We have compelling evidence that it is the primary (or possibly the only) factor and that we’ll experience more warming if we don’t cut back on it. It’s a reliable kind of general prediction, not the more uncertain type about exact outcomes you were probably talking about.
While there is much uncertainty about the exact effects of this raising temperature, we do know that it will lead to changes and those changes will happen much too quickly for life on earth to adapt, and human technology isn’t enough to adjust for that. Our entire food supply depends on the current circumstances, and they will be gone. On the bright side, some of life will thrive without having to fight with the former competition that will have gone extinct by then, and without having to deal with the pollution produced by a technological civilization.
Sadly, there’s more than just CO2. It seems whenever we discover something new, it’s in the bad direction. One such thing is permafrost. It will take just a bit more warming for the permafrost around the arctic to thaw and, with that, to all the methane it trapped to be released. Methane happens to be an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 so that will be a huge boost in the wrong direction.
I already mentioned acidification of the oceans. Contrary to popular belief, rainforests aren’t the “lungs” of Earth, phytoplancton are, and they happen to be sensitive to ph. So, too much CO2 in the air can decimate the very organisms that would turn most of that CO2 into oxygen. Again, something that amplifies an already problematic effect.