What climate action to people favor or be willing to accept?

[wellwisher]

Every time there is disastrously bad weather, we are treated to saturation coverage about “Global Warming“ or “climate change.“ There are graphic descriptions of fires, mudslides, heat waves, and wind, storms, including hurricanes, and tornadoes. There are calls for “action” to prevent further disasters. In this thread, I am putting to one side question of whether what we are experiencing is worse there in the past or not. I am also avoiding the question as to whether or not there actually is man-made climate change. I am pretty certain that the human race is actually putting yourself in harms way.

Last spring, people ranged from hysterical to mildly upset about gasoline that was between five dollars per gallon at six dollars per gallon.

What I do want to hear are people’s suggestions for what we need to change in order to preserve the planet for future generations. What technology are we willing to give up? How we are willing to change our dwellings? Whether we are willing to give a vacation homes or frequent long-distance travel? Are we willing to give up meat consumption?

I would like to hear peoples views on this.

Observing and qualifying climate change is the job of pure science. Remediation is the job of applied science. These are two different areas of science. The former theorizes and correlated the phenomena. This is about the subjectivity of the consensus. It is the objectivity of applied scientists to deal with the real world. This gives applied science a better shot at being right. One would need to test, at real world conditions, and not just throw money at the problem or try to stick it to your political opponents, like the approach of the Left. Applied is about practical application, with practical good I mind for all, and not just the elite and their cronies.

The boneheads in charge of the subjective approach of pure science consensus, would need to get out of the way since they have no clue who to solve an applied problem that has no precedent. They are ignoring natural climate change and approaching it as a fully man made problem, which is naive; pseudo-applied pure science approach. The leaders will set themselves up for security; skim, while harming millions or billions.

The same group of environmentalists boneheads were pivotal in making nuclear power too expensive, thereby leading to the over dependence on fossil fuels, that they now claim is the problem. It was all about saving the earth from their fantasy of nuclear doom and gloom. Nuclear was ready to go in the 1960's, but instead they work hard to put us where we are. They have no clue. They had no vision of the future.

Next, automobiles used to pollute more, with much of that pollution, aerosol smog, that actually reversed the impact of CO2. They gave up nukes, went to oil and then removed the countering aerosols. Next the boneheads, to save the planet cleaned up coal fired plants that also made reversing aerosols and particles. Each time they think they are applied scientists, selling themselves as saviors and do gooders, they screw the pouch. The first thing would be to get the morons in the environmental climate bureaucracy, out of the way, less they screw us all, with good intensions and bad ideas. The global inflation and even the supply side problems, stoking inflation, came from the same do gooders. I think they mistake their underhanded con artist nature for intelligence.

I like the idea of investing in Africa, since that is the continent of natural and man made fire. Those fires gives off trillions of tons of CO2 per year. This rivals all man made sources combined. Regulating the natural fires could give us an CO2 offset, and time, while we develop better technology while not having to disrupt the world economies. We would not have to disrupt people lives, by energy rationing and black outs if with offset with fire control.

We need to invest in nuclear. Also, electric cars is not the way to go in the long term. Almost nobody still does plug in, in terms of computing , internet, and cell phones. Plug in will become obsolete. We live in a wireless world, where hydrogen fuel cells will be leading that frontier, way into the future, when electric cars are junked.

A fuel cell is very similar to a battery and generates electricity. But instead of plug-in, into a vulnerable grid that is not yet even built, you simply replace the portable hydrogen fuel, like filling up with gasoline. There is no combustion, just a chemical conversion of hydrogen to electricity, releasing water, with the rest of the auto, essentially electric.

A tank of hydrogen weighs 10% as much as an electric car battery. This weight advantage gives for extra savings and efficiency. Hydrogen has more energy per pound than gasoline or diesel, so it can be use by heavy machinery, trains, ships, etc, in all weather conditions, even where there is no electric grid. Hydrogen can even be made directly from solar panel electricity, for remote homesteader mobile fuel.

Many of the concerns with hydrogen are already addressed, such as hydrogen fuel tanks will be made of carbon fiber that can be dropped from a skyscraper or shot with a high powered rifle, with no damage. Hydrogen can also be made by catalytic conversion of ammonia at the point of sale, with ammonia safer to transport in bulk.

 

[metis]

They are ignoring natural climate change and approaching it as a fully man made problem, which is naive; pseudo-applied pure science approach.

Nonsense, and it is YOU who is politicizing this while ignoring the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

 

[Valjean]

What you consider fast is irrelevant in a process that occurs over millions of years.

But this present, anthropogenic collapse didn't occur over millions of years. It occurred over a couple hundred years. Nor was it natural in origin. It's causes have nothing to do with the causes of the previous five mass extinction events.

Regardless of that there is not a single scientist that claims it isn’t going to happen regardless of what we do unless you can somehow find a way to adjust the tilt of the earth to the sun.

It's not caused by precession. Precession is a well known phenomenon that's included in all climate models.
Earth's been wobbling for billions of years. Never before has it caused such, extreme or rapid effects.

The left simply want to punt the problem off to future generations to deal with instead of beginning the long road of prep work we are going to need to do in order to minimize the damage.

The greatest generation this one certainly isn’t

It was more the Party of Big Business and the status quo that fought every effort to regulate the sources of the greenhouse gasses; that blocked every environmental initiative since WWII.
Carter (D) put solar heating panels on the white house roof. Reagan (R) immediately removed them.

 

[crossfire]

Start by cleaning up the oceans, along with severely limiting plastic production.

 

[setarcos]

I personally find it somewhat ironic that if one mentions God, the scientifically minded among us immediately bring out the science clubs and start swinging. And yet if you bring out the scientific consensus of most climatologists and related fields of study today concerning climate change and its effects it seems those same people on here start swinging at the science as if the science cant take care of itself - it has to be brought into alinement with proper expectations.
I think it boils down to how the person psychologically parses the information given.
The facts as I understand them are that nothing as concerns climate change cannot be generally associated with natural cyclical events throughout earths history except perhaps the artificial pollution mankind spews out and mankind's ability to artificially manipulate natural processes.
So what's different in the Anthropocene epoch and what's the alarm all about as compared to earths earlier cyclical history? I believe it comes down to time and how humans have structured their civilizations.

The time spans we're talking about are alarming because of the rapidity of the changes. All else being equal the science has shown that the artificial manipulation of the natural world by human beings has far, far outpaced the abilities of the natural cyclic changes nature alone is capable of and of natures ability to adapt to those changes positively.
Its like we have a forest fire that given natural processes we might be able to contain, keep ahead of and adapt to, or even extinguish before it does too much damage, but we've instead decided to poor an accelerant onto the fire. And not only that, IF, the science is sound, humans have directly contributed to allowing multiple fires arise at the same time in a very short period of time so that even if we could over come one fire given enough time we've created a situation in which we have to fight multiple fires while not having enough time.
And yes the science I've read has included all known natural cyclic processes in the calculations of the rapidity of the changes and the sources of the contributing factors, including volcanic activity, sun cycles, and even terrestrial and galactic rotations etc. Human contributions still outpace all these factors in shear amounts of contributions over far shorter periods of time than these natural cyclic patterns. That science is pretty sound.

The other factor which makes these changes so alarming is the way humans have built their civilizations. We are no longer a nomadic people for the most part which can easily uproot ourselves en mass and move with the habitable areas as other areas become less habitable or even disappear, as the coastal areas around the world are expected to. We've tied trillions of dollars of our infrastructures, making modern civilization possible, to particular areas not easily relocated. We've developed borders not easily crossed, ideologies not easily integrated, modern methods of food production not easily relocated or reorganized and our modern distribution systems have become so complex their not easily reorganized as our world is forced into reorganization. Where we've attempted advancement we've poured our hearts and souls into progressing technologies which make our current lives easier and more productive while at the same time making them less adaptable to change and more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse. We have spent precious little time on universal cultural understanding and moral solidarity - necessary in a rapidly changing world - and willingly reward the entertainment industry 10+ times the amounts we give to our scientific and educational endeavors.
We'd more readily jail a climate activist or underpay a teacher than condemn paying $500+ a ticket to see a half naked person singing about the hedonistic joys of sex, drugs, gender ambiguity, or the "gangsta" life style paying them millions of dollars for an hrs worth of civil anarchy for our and our kids entertainment.
Good luck to the human race in the years ahead.

 

[Valjean]

I think it boils down to how the person psychologically parses the information given.
The facts as I understand them are that nothing as concerns climate change cannot be generally associated with natural cyclical events throughout earths history except perhaps the artificial pollution mankind spews out and mankind's ability to artificially manipulate natural processes.
So what's different in the Anthropocene epoch and what's the alarm all about as compared to earths earlier cyclical history? I believe it comes down to time and how humans have structured their civilizations.

The natural factors affecting climate, like day/night, seasons, solar/minimum, vulcanism, Earth's tilt, orbit, and wobble; drifting techtonic plates, &c. are known and their effects included in climate modeling. The current changes are not accounted for by these natural forces, but add human factors, and the observations begin to fit the predictions.
What's different from previous climatic variations is the cause and the rapidity.

The time spans we're talking about are alarming because of the rapidity of the changes. All else being equal the science has shown that the artificial manipulation of the natural world by human beings has far, far outpaced the abilities of the natural cyclic changes nature alone is capable of and of natures ability to adapt to those changes positively.
Its like we have a forest fire that given natural processes we might be able to contain, keep ahead of and adapt to, or even extinguish before it does too much damage, but we've instead decided to poor an accelerant onto the fire. And not only that, IF, the science is sound, humans have directly contributed to allowing multiple fires arise at the same time in a very short period of time so that even if we could over come one fire given enough time we've created a situation in which we have to fight multiple fires while not having enough time.
And yes the science I've read has included all known natural cyclic processes in the calculations of the rapidity of the changes and the sources of the contributing factors, including volcanic activity, sun cycles, and even terrestrial and galactic rotations etc. Human contributions still outpace all these factors in shear amounts of contributions over far shorter periods of time than these natural cyclic patterns. That science is pretty sound.

Quite so. You've summed it up well. But I don't understand your attribution of current changes to natural cycles.

The other factor which makes these changes so alarming is the way humans have built their civilizations. We are no longer a nomadic people for the most part which can easily uproot ourselves en mass and move with the habitable areas as other areas become less habitable or even disappear, as the coastal areas around the world are expected to. We've tied trillions of dollars of our infrastructures, making modern civilization possible, to particular areas not easily relocated. We've developed borders not easily crossed, ideologies not easily integrated, modern methods of food production not easily relocated or reorganized and our modern distribution systems have become so complex their not easily reorganized as our world is forced into reorganization. Where we've attempted advancement we've poured our hearts and souls into progressing technologies which make our current lives easier and more productive while at the same time making them less adaptable to change and more vulnerable to catastrophic collapse. We have spent precious little time on universal cultural understanding and moral solidarity - necessary in a rapidly changing world - and willingly reward the entertainment industry 10+ times the amounts we give to our scientific and educational endeavors.
We'd more readily jail a climate activist or underpay a teacher than condemn paying $500+ a ticket to see a half naked person singing about the hedonistic joys of sex, drugs, gender ambiguity, or the "gangsta" life style paying them millions of dollars for an hrs worth of civil anarchy for our and our kids entertainment.
Good luck to the human race in the years ahead.ï

Good points. We've abandoned the sustainable, hunter-gatherer lifestyle we're physically and psychologically adapted to for huge, diverse populations dependant on complex infrastructure and complex, supra-Dunbar interrelationships. We can manipulate technology, but we can't shed our tribalism and aversion to diversity, and extending moral consideration to extra-tribal populations is very unnatural, and must be taught and actively reïnforced.

We've exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. We're extracting "resources" and occupying space as never before. The world population has tripled just in my lifetime. This is not a sustainable model.

 

[jbg]

But this present, anthropogenic collapse didn't occur over millions of years. It occurred over a couple hundred years. Nor was it natural in origin. It's causes have nothing to do with the causes of the previous five mass extinction events.

It's not caused by precession. Precession is a well known phenomenon that's included in all climate models.
Earth's been wobbling for billions of years. Never before has it caused such, extreme or rapid effects.

It was more the Party of Big Business and the status quo that fought every effort to regulate the sources of the greenhouse gasses; that blocked every environmental initiative since WWII.
Carter (D) put solar heating panels on the white house roof. Reagan (R) immediately removed them.

Are you prepared to live without driving?

 

[Valjean]

Are you prepared to live without driving?

What's thathave to do with climate change?

Electric vehicles? High mileage vehicles? There are alternatives.
I already live without meat or the carbon footprint of children.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Start by cleaning up the oceans, along with severely limiting plastic production.

Plastic has also lowered the quality of life and longevity of multicomponent products and encourages planned obsolescence.

 

[metis]

Still amounts to essentially nothing.

Exercises in futility.

How do you supposedly know that.

 

[jbg]

What's thathave to do with climate change?

Electric vehicles? High mileage vehicles? There are alternatives.
I already live without meat or the carbon footprint of children.

The agenda is control, not saving the world.

 

[Heyo]

The agenda is control, not saving the world.

You're a victim of Big Aluminium.

 

[wellwisher]

Nonsense, and it is YOU who is politicizing this while ignoring the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

That consensus is based on what is most likely to be published. One needs to self censor to be part of the consensus. Anything labeled denier, even if good science, will not be published.

I read that the forest fires in California, over the past decade, gave off more CO2, than all the environmental and green energy gains they have made. It was an expensive waste of time. If they had better forest management they could have made more of a net affect. Lefty Forest mismanagement was doomed to failure.

I read an article yesterday about predictions of the upcoming winter, based on the current El Niño affect. El Niño, which is natural, is causing climate change, and has little to do with CO2.

My prediction is if this winter has any large snow storms, the fake new will be banging the manmade climate change drum and they will not connected this to El Niño. El Niño was first discovered in the 1600's, two centuries, before modern science records and any climate blame, on CO2. El Niño is before manmade and is still with us.

El Niño was in affect this past summer, but was absent from most of the doom and gloom reporting. Where is the consensus of science to clarify this? Why do they let the politics and fake news lead?

 

[crossfire]

Plastic has also lowered the quality of life and longevity of multicomponent products and encourages planned obsolescence.

We have to do what we can to help the earth recover. Limiting CO2 does not encourage green plant growth. Cleaning up contaminants does. Have you noticed how a few strategically placed trees helps to shade an area and keep heat from being stored in the ground or pavement?

 

[jbg]

My prediction is if this winter has any large snow storms, the fake new will be banging the manmade climate change drum and they will not connected this to El Niño. El Niño was first discovered in the 1600's, two centuries, before modern science records and any climate blame, on CO2. El Niño is before manmade and is still with us.

El Niño was in affect this past summer, but was absent from most of the doom and gloom reporting. Where is the consensus of science to clarify this? Why do they let the politics and fake news lead?

During the 1997-8 Niño episode some "scientists" were blaming El Niño on human activities. What climate alarmist creates is an ability to grab larges amounts of cash to spend without any accountability. Who knows, if 2037 is relatively quiet, if the spendapalooza did any good?

 

[Valjean]

The agenda is control, not saving the world.

Control? Control of what, by whom?

During the 1997-8 Niño episode some "scientists" were blaming El Niño on human activities. What climate alarmist creates is an ability to grab larges amounts of cash to spend without any accountability. Who knows, if 2037 is relatively quiet, if the spendapalooza did any good?

Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[setarcos]

Are you prepared to live without driving?

This is a good example of the problems humanity has created for itself. Very few in modern society, especially in so called 1st world economies would be able to live above a tenuous level of survival without modern driving conveniences. From the need to commuting to work to the necessity of transporting supplies long distances in shorter and shorter amounts of time humanity has painted itself into this corner. From driving to flying to shipping, to the manufacturing of the shipped and devices of transportation we've created monsters not easily slain, and necessities relying on them too far away from their destinations not to.
And we've done so under the absurd presumptions that the accumulated residual pollution resulting from such creations could best be rendered ineffectual through dispersal throughout the environment or collectively corralled elsewhere - out of sight out of mind.
Lets take all our collected trash and dump it over the hill where we don't have to see it. Lets not worry about all the poisonous gases we're spewing into the atmosphere from our creations because they will disperse and the earth will magically render them ineffectual. Problems solved.
Except, our solved problems are coming back to bight us in the backside.
What's so frustrating is having all these studies and warnings and condemnations shoved in our collective faces while not being given realistic solutions ; buy electric transport, -never mind you can't afford it - stop buying plastics, - never mind most of us live where everything we can buy to sustain us uses some sort of plastic packaging which is out of our hands, - go solar - never mind most, again can't afford it, or don't have the skills to install the technology - quit your job for a more environmentally favorable one - never mind you need the income to keep from starving and the availability of any alternatives are slim to none.
Basically, stop doing this or start doing that without regard to how we might collectively and reasonably implement these ideas into feasibility.
Heck even Greta Thunberg - one of the poster persons for the modern environmental activist movements - has produced or used products that produced a lot of pollution just to get her messages out. Its a big big problem to figure out.

 

[setarcos]

Limiting CO2 does not encourage green plant growth.

Your certainly right here but keep in mind that not limiting artificially produced co2 emissions will certainly have an effect on our ability thrive.
Society has got to put more emphasis into choking off the sources of pollution before cleaning up what we've already damaged will have a noticeable effect I'm afraid. Our problem is that collectively most people just don't want to change their lifestyles very much. We want to really make a dent to help the earth....stop going to mega concerts for entertainment, ban feedlots and large pig farming factories, stop eating exotic foods that have to be transported mega miles to get to your plate, sew your own clothes from natural fibers, stop enabling the monetarily rich by rewarding them with ludicrous amounts of money to entertain us or find better ways to fleece society without an equivalent benefit to humanity overall in order to ensure their ridiculously unnecessary resource hungry and efficiency taxing extravagances, etc. And all that would have to be universally agreed upon.

 

[metis]

That consensus is based on what is most likely to be published. One needs to self censor to be part of the consensus.

That is simply not even close to being true as "peer review" does not mean censorship based on myopic agreement but is the process whereas we must allow other scientists to view the data and comment on it.

 

[crossfire]

Your certainly right here but keep in mind that not limiting artificially produced co2 emissions will certainly have an effect on our ability thrive.
Society has got to put more emphasis into choking off the sources of pollution before cleaning up what we've already damaged will have a noticeable effect I'm afraid. Our problem is that collectively most people just don't want to change their lifestyles very much. We want to really make a dent to help the earth....stop going to mega concerts for entertainment, ban feedlots and large pig farming factories, stop eating exotic foods that have to be transported mega miles to get to your plate, sew your own clothes from natural fibers, stop enabling the monetarily rich by rewarding them with ludicrous amounts of money to entertain us or find better ways to fleece society without an equivalent benefit to humanity overall in order to ensure their ridiculously unnecessary resource hungry and efficiency taxing extravagances, etc. And all that would have to be universally agreed upon.

Limiting plastic production is limiting one form of artificially produced CO2.