road to nowhere, I just now got the following idea. Maybe I think so many people on this site are far right (instead of center-right) wing politically on this site because my views are so far left wing (while seeming very sensible to me), that relative to me center-right wing people bashing left wing progressive ideas (and progressive people) thus seem far right wing.
Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
by Disillusioned JW 146 Replies latest social current
-
Disillusioned JW
-
road to nowhere
Iconsider myself moderate. Luddite leanings and a working class background. I decry the idea that everyone can live above average ( oxymoron) and the idea that minimum income works-minimum skills is a better metric. Bernie should have promoted " free" job training.
My skepticism on climate hinges on the natural cycles from ice ages etc. The local weather station is at an airport which moved and once was at city park.
-
Disillusioned JW
Yesterday I discovered in an anthropology book I own that its author warned that a rise of global temperature of 2.5 degrees Celsius would be very dangerous. That book is copyright 1977 and is written by a world famous leading paleontologist anthropologist named Richard Leakey (who died recently) and coauthored by a person who was at the time the science editor of the science journal called New Scientist. I am astonished that way back in 1977 he proclaimed global warming climate change dangers that most scientists didn't become convinced in until decades later! [But, there is the exception that Leakey seems to be primarily thinking about the problem of having enough food to feed billions of people, not being fully aware of other problems from a rise in global temperature.] Here we are in the year 2022, 45 years after his book was copyright, and there is now an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists of the dangers of more than a 2 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures.
The science book is called ORIGINS: What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species and its Possible Future, by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. [Richard Leakey was unreligious and an atheist, and he became such at a young age. He was also a Humanist. Such are stated in some of his science books.] Much of the book is about human evolution and physical anthropology and much of the latter part is about cultural anthropology.
The last chapter of that book is called "Mankind in Perspective". Near the end of the chapter, on pages 249 - 253 (but excluding pages 250-252 which are mostly photos), he says the following [I have added boldface for emphasis].
"We know, too, that there is enough coal to supply our energy-hungry world for many centuries. But it may also turn out that in order to survive we will have to leave that coal buried and unburned. The problem is that, as with other fossil fuels (oil and gas), coal when it is burned releases carbon dioxide. Over the long term, a large build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the world's climate sufficiently to disrupt seriously the pattern of agriculture. Moreover, agricultural production in the U.S., China and the Soviet Union is so finely balanced with demand, particularly for grain, that even the slightest normal variation in weather can cause havoc. The results of global warming of 2.5°C, the anticipated outcome of a dramatic rise in the carbon dioxide level within sixty years, are virtually unimaginable.
Major policy decisions will have to be taken with the next thirty years if this prospect is diverted. And those decisions will be useless unless they are agreed upon globally: there would be little point, for instance, in the Soviet Union deciding not to unearth its massive coal reserves if the U.S. goes ahead and burns its coal, or vice versa. Undoubtedly the question of future energy resources is about to strain the machinery of international decision-making as it has never been strained before. There is no mistaking that if the wrong decisions are made within the next thirty years, human life on earth could be set on the downward spiral toward extinction."
Page 141 of the book has a chart which "shows how the temperatures have fluctuated during the last million years."
-
DATA-DOG
Yep… and 4 out of 5 Dentists recommend Colgate toothpaste…
Human civilization affects the climate, but we just don’t know the extent and there’s no end of Politicians lining up to sound the alarm while lining their pockets via the Electric Vehicle craze which is incredibly stupid as we don’t have enough materials on Earth ( without more petroleum powered mining, and more destruction of nature ) to produce batteries and chips that are necessary to power all these “solutions” on wheels that masses can’t even afford.
If you believe Witch Pelosi flew to Taiwan because she cares about the Climate, and not to secure $$$ for herself and others who will benefit from the Chip industry, then you’re the gullible Sheeple they need glued to your Smart Phone, which requires petroleum, and mining and all manner of environmentally harmful practices to produce.
DD
-
Vidqun
And what to do with all of these? These have an approximate 15 year lifespan, are not recycled and are not biodegradable. By the way, one wind turbine cannot generate the amount of energy in its lifetime that was used in its manufacture.
-
Anony Mous
@disillusioned: many predictions have been made by apocalyptic cults. Whether it is god or climate, it doesn’t really matter.
The book you spoke of was written in the 70s, we are now 50 years further and we’re still talking about 2.5C in the next 30 years and the change since 1970 has been minimal, 0.5C with the predicted 1C change being extended from 1980s to now 2050.
It’s CT Russel’s fearmongering taken to a global scale. Yes, the earth is getting warmer, but 90% of the CO2 is emitted by natural processes. Now people are shifting from CO2 to Methane as the predictions on CO2 have been repeatedly falsified.
I still want to see solutions promoted that don’t require thousands to die in order to minimize the human impact on the environment. I want to see sustainable solutions, that don’t require resources worse than oil.
-
TonusOH
The headline: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans
The article: The scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%
The article: The degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors sayAm I the only one who sees a difference between 'human activity affects the climate' and 'there is a climate emergency'? The article writers add a blurb at the end stating that "global heating is supercharging extreme weather at an astonishing speed." But this isn't demonstrated in the article, which seems to be explaining that there is a consensus among scientists that human activity is warming the planet. What is the scientific consensus on whether there is a 'climate emergency' and what is the nature of that emergency?
The governments of the world took sudden, drastic, and continuing action to deal with COVID-19, which makes it seem as if they take that threat very seriously. Why is it that those same governments seem utterly unconcerned with a "climate emergency"? They have willingly and unhesitatingly ruined lives and set economies back to deal with COVID. But after decades of hysteria, they still don't think that climate change is an issue. I think those governments can see the difference between "we affect the climate" and "the climate catastrophe is coming!!!"
-
Disillusioned JW
Hello Anony Mous. I notice you wrote the following. "The book you spoke of was written in the 70s, we are now 50 years further and we’re still talking about 2.5C in the next 30 years and the change since 1970 has been minimal, 0.5C with the predicted 1C change being extended from 1980s to now 2050." That is somewhat a different impression than what I got from the book. The book was copyright in 1977 and it said "[m]ajor policy decisions will have to be taken" within 30 years from 1977, thus by 2007, to prevent serious problems by 60 years from 1977, thus by 2037.
Notice the book also said the following. "The results of global warming of 2.5°C, the anticipated outcome of a dramatic rise in the carbon dioxide level within sixty years, are virtually unimaginable.Major policy decisions will have to be taken with the next thirty years if this prospect is diverted." The book thus said the major problems would happen by the year 2037 (1977 + 60 years) if not enough is done by the year 2007. Nations have taken some actions by 2007 and some further actions were from 2008-2021, to avert the problem which the book says will happen by the year 2037 if not enough major action is taken. The actions which have been done have not stopped the warming, but they might have bought us some time in delaying a warming of 2.5 degrees Celsius above 1977 levels.
When scientists today talk about averting 2.5C increase they don't mean a 2.5 degree Celsius from today's temperature, but rather from a level prior level. They mean from above pre-industrial levels. The target level to avoid has thus not moved, though some say that even a smaller increase is dangerous.
See https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/whats-difference-between-15c-2c-global-warming-2021-11-07/ which says the following. "The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C. ... Already, the world has heated to around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Each of the last four decades was hotter than any decade since 1850." Notice that is says the temperature has already raised to
1.1°C above pre-industrial levels.Similarly https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/ says the following. "At the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in December 2015, 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement2. The first instrument of its kind, the landmark agreement includes the aim to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by ‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels’.
...Summary: Human-induced warming has already reached about 1°C above pre-industrial levels at the time of writing of this Special Report. By the decade 2006–2015, human activity had warmed the world by 0.87°C (±0.12°C) compared to pre-industrial times (1850–1900). If the current warming rate continues, the world would reach human-induced global warming of 1.5°C around 2040.
... In the decade 2006–2015, warming reached 0.87°C (±0.12°C) relative to 1850–1900, predominantly due to human activity increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Given that global temperature is currently rising by 0.2°C (±0.1°C) per decade, human-induced warming reached 1°C above pre-industrial levels around 2017 and, if this pace of warming continues, would reach 1.5°C around 2040.
While the change in global average temperature tells researchers about how the planet as a whole is changing, looking more closely at specific regions, countries and seasons reveals important details. Since the 1970s, most land regions have been warming faster than the global average, for example. This means that warming in many regions has already exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Over a fifth of the global population live in regions that have already experienced warming in at least one season that is greater than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
The Reuters' article I quote from above also says the following.
'So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming. The International Energy Agency said Thursday that new promises announced at the COP26 summit - if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action.
Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unliveable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics. Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.
"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.'
The book from 1977 (and thus despite being 45 years old), in regards to what I quoted from it about climate change, is thus very much in agreement with what climate scientists are saying today.
-
road to nowhere
Even my rose-colored glasses do not want me to live in a pre industrial world. You mean the one where we plowedwith horses, had famines, and hunted whales for the oil?
-
Vidqun
Disillusioned JW, don't believe everything you read and hear. TheOldLabRat demonstrates the cause of climate, not only of earth, but also of all the planets in our solar system. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Do the math.