Opinion 2 Questions about Global Warming

[Topguntrophey]

Pollution should be a more imminent concern.

100 percent. Global warming focus innocently or on purpose has hijacked opportunities to reduce pollution and think about harmonious living with the plant.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

yeah, people living in 100 years won't believe how good we had it.

I see what your saying but I think there will be winners and losers, the parallel I would draw is the black death , afterwards things got much better for the average person, there will be massive upheaval but I don't think it's all doom and gloom .

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The marketing department switched it from global warming to climate change so they can say they were right no matter what happens, then tell you weather does not equal climate when it doesn't fit, right before telling you every storm or a hot day in the desert that does fit is climate change in action.

It's not really a matter of the comfort of the temperature so much as the downstream effects of sea levels getting higher. The better question would be why giving these weird Druids at Davos all the power would ward off the sun monster.

It's a little too convenient that the solutions are the same things they were pushing for before climate change was even the excuse, and all are giving them all the power and ownership of everything to distribute to the peasants as they see fit. They keep switching from "it's already too late" to "there's still time if you give us all the power now". It's the same tactic a scummy salesman uses with a fake buyer on the line negotiating against you to drive the price up so you hurry up and buy it before he does, only it's "we got the sun monster on the line here and he's ready to kill your grandkids if you don't take our offer".

The reason for the switch from global warming to climate change should be obvious , it's more descriptive, it's no deeper than that .
Don't worry about a boogeyman, fuck them.

Why not take simple measures , renewable energy is cheaper, provide more jobs and provides energy security , independence and at that the same time takes power away from destabilising regimes like Putin and his ilk

When cost of ownership is factored in Electric cars are already cheaper and will continue to drop in cost as production and demand increase


Solar panels on your house pay for themselves

Eating a bit less meat is better for you , and will save money , if enough people do so there will be a significant positive environmental impact

There's plenty we can do that will only have a positive impact on our lives and if anything take away power form global elites .

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

To be fair, there was a lot of talk in the 60s and 70s that Earth was overdo for an ice age. It was mostly speculative. There were theories that the Earth goes through hot and cold cycles and since we were in a warm period for recorded history, we were due for another ice age.

With global warming, we are actually measuring a scary increase in rising temperatures for decades. The question as always is "Is this normal/cyclical or are humans accelerating it?". With the increase in population, production, manufacturing, livestock, etc., it would be kinda foolish to think that humans aren't impacting greatly on the climate.

But of course, every time you get a crazy snow storm, you have people be like "Ha! Global Warming!" not realizing that is exactly what happens as the climate is changing. You get constant warm and cold fronts clashing but eventually, the warm weather will win out and seasons will slowly go away or lessen depending on the part of the world you are in. You'll still get your snow in certain areas, it will just be milder but randomly chaotic. That's the problem - weather becomes unpredictable and extreme.

I do think there are a ton of hypocrites in the climate change community and stating things as facts like "By 2025, California will be underwater" is too bold of prediction and makes them look stupid. California WILL be under water, we just don't know when but at this pace of warmth, the sea levels are rising and it's just a matter of time.

I just don't understand the side that wants to deny climate change or at the very least, just wants to go about their life and not even try. You don't want cleaner air? More efficient buildings and products? Alternative fuels? You hear so much talk from those people about getting out of the Middle East, well clean energy is one way to do it and make it where we are completely independent from any other nation.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I can't believe I missed this... Why in the hell do you fall for this shit??

The real cover of Time below is from 2007. Do you see how easily you fall for fake/photoshopped images because of you biases?

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

 

[PG29 red0 Jr]

I just don't understand the side that wants to deny climate change or at the very least, just wants to go about their life and not even try. You don't want cleaner air? More efficient buildings and products? Alternative fuels? You hear so much talk from those people about getting out of the Middle East, well clean energy is one way to do it and make it where we are completely independent from any other nation.

Most of the things I enjoy revolve around burning gasoline. It's not that I don't want to try, its that if anything I want to burn more gasoline not less.

 

[nostradumbass]

The reason for the switch from global warming to climate change should be obvious , it's more descriptive, it's no deeper than that .
Don't worry about a boogeyman, fuck them.

Why not take simple measures , renewable energy is cheaper, provide more jobs and provides energy security , independence and at that the same time takes power away from destabilising regimes like Putin and his ilk

When cost of ownership is factored in Electric cars are already cheaper and will continue to drop in cost as production and demand increase


Solar panels on your house pay for themselves

Eating a bit less meat is better for you , and will save money , if enough people do so there will be a significant positive environmental impact

There's plenty we can do that will only have a positive impact on our lives and if anything take away power form global elites .

And that's a fine sales pitch. If something is a better deal, then it doesn't require mandates, extra taxes etc.

Right now it's clearly not a cost savings, and if it was, it would obviously be the poorest countries adopting it, but instead it's the richest people in the richest countries. Right now they have rolling blackouts and tell the plebs to adjust their thermostats, eat bugs and stop moving around town so much.

If they figure out better ways to store energy where it is actually cheaper and is reliable, cool, send it over, and maybe don't all take private jets into a luxurious Swiss mountain resort with a platoon of prostitutes to discuss your ideas on how to force "sacrifice" on poor people.

As far as destabilizing regimes, why the eff would people want a bunch of unstable regimes with hundreds of millions of people and nuclear weapons?

Also, maybe don't write a book called "the great reset" then tell everyone it's a conspiracy theory, and don't look in the mirror before you leave your house wearing this and decide "Yep, this is what I'm wearing today".

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I can't believe I missed this... Why in the hell do you fall for this shit??

The real cover of Time below is from 2007. Do you see how easily you fall for fake/photoshopped images because of you biases?

https://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

And that's a fine sales pitch. If something is a better deal, then it doesn't require mandates, extra taxes etc.

Right now it's clearly not a cost savings, and if it was, it would obviously be the poorest countries adopting it, but instead it's the richest people in the richest countries. Right now they have rolling blackouts and tell the plebs to adjust their thermostats, eat bugs and stop moving around town so much.

If they figure out better ways to store energy where it is actually cheaper and is reliable, cool, send it over, and maybe don't all take private jets into a luxurious Swiss mountain resort with a platoon of prostitutes to discuss your ideas on how to force "sacrifice" on poor people.

As far as destabilizing regimes, why the eff would people want a bunch of unstable regimes with hundreds of millions of people and nuclear weapons?

Also, maybe don't write a book called "the great reset" then tell everyone it's a conspiracy theory, and don't look in the mirror before you leave your house wearing this and decide "Yep, this is what I'm wearing today".

Dude I get it , you're a sceptic , nothing wrong with that but everything I said is true

It is a costs savings even now and will only get cheaper , even using grid level lithium Ion as storage is feasible but that won't be the future, there are far cheaper methods .

If you're genuinely interested I'll happily dive deeper into this later on

As far as destabilising regimes they are already rogue , slowly taking away their leverage seems a good idea to me .

 

[west42]

I'm a plumber and dad was a plumber. I started helping him regularly when I was 13 in the mid/late 80s. We used to replace hot water tanks that were 20+ years old regularly. The oldest one I swapped out the last decade was 16 years old and they typically shit the bed right around 10 here. Furnaces don't last. I have a service call scheduled tomorrow to swap out an 8 year old dishwasher.

Yeah, I'm with you. We're tossing away all sorts of shit because it's so cheaply made that they don't last and to replace common serviceable items costs ¾ of a new unit. Planned obsolescence and making stuff unserviceable legit pisses me off.

Same can be said for mower, weed Wackers, chainsaws, edgers, etc. Mostly due to ethanol gas. Huge waster of energy and resources

 

[Bballfan123]

The Greenland iceshelf alone is losing 250 billion metric tons pr year and it's accelerating

No, it's not. If you read my post winter sea ice is UP 30,000 square miles, right now, compared to average. (compared to 1990-2020 to be precise).

"The North America and Greenland snow cover extent was 17.66 million square kilometers (6.82 million square miles), which is 70,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the 1991-2020 average. This tied 1977 and 2019 as the 25th-largest snow cover extent for North America on record."

From the NOAA themselves: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-snow/202301

 

[ferrisjso]

2 questions about global warming I never quite understood

First off: the goal is to reduce global warming to 'less than 2C'. Currently we are at around 1.5C of warming I believe?

My question is how is 2C even 'that bad'? The Arctic is cold. Like really really cold. Around -20C in winter and 5C in summer, basically every day. There are parts that are even colder, some parts of Russian Siberia average below -40C in the winter for approx 6 months. 6 months of eternal freezing cold. How would a 2C increase to -38C cause any change at all? Seems like nothing really would happen. The only places that would see a noticeable effect would be like the east coast of U.S., where a 2C increase could bring some parts from a -1C average to a 1C average. Which would mean a lot less snow for some mild parts but the actual arctic and super cold regions would still stay super cold.
It was -89F in Yakutia earlier this winter, I don't see how bringing the temp up to approx -84F is going to cause any sort of difference. It's still fucking cold.

Second if the Arctic is warming faster than average what are the regions that are warming slower than average? I want to be able to play in snow 100 years from now and want to buy land in places that are more resilient.

A it's average temp and 2 degrees changes a lot B the big issue isn't the number it's time release. Basically you have to stop like 50 years before the warming stops. Akin to hitting the brakes on the car and the car continuing to drive for another mile. The carbon causing todays warming was burnt in the 1970s by a predominantly dead population. So when someone says we are screwed by today they really mean in 50 years because the warming is "locked in". That's the real challenge of the crisis that educators have really failed to drive home.

Also there's feedback loops which will be triggered etc.

 

[dirtypablo]

No, it's not. If you read my post winter sea ice is UP 30,000 square miles, right now, compared to average. (compared to 1990-2020 to be precise).

"The North America and Greenland snow cover extent was 17.66 million square kilometers (6.82 million square miles), which is 70,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the 1991-2020 average. This tied 1977 and 2019 as the 25th-largest snow cover extent for North America on record."

From the NOAA themselves: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-snow/202301

You're conflating a bunch of separate things. He was talking about the Greenland ice sheet mass, and its YEARLY change, and you're talking about the snow cover in a single month. Then, in your post you say winter sea ice - winter sea ice and snow cover aren't the same thing, and when it comes to sea ice the more important parameter is largely mass, not area.

We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet for the past 46 years by comparing glacier ice discharge into the ocean with interior accumulation of snowfall from regional atmospheric climate models over 260 drainage basins. The mass balance started to deviate from its natural range of variability in the 1980s. The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. Greenland has raised sea level by 13.7 mm since 1972, half during the last 8 years.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1904242116#:~:text=The ice sheet gained 47,13.7 ± 1.1 mm SLR.

Not only that, but you're ignoring the larger trend that is clearly pointed out in your own article.

The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent for January 2023 was 46.27 million square kilometers (17.86 million square miles), which is 974,000 square kilometers (376,000 square miles) below the 1991-2020 average.
..
The North America and Greenland snow cover extent was 17.66 million square kilometers (6.82 million square miles), which is 70,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the 1991-2020 average.

So, the total snow cover in the northern hemisphere is 376,000 square miles below the average, but you're pointing out that it is 30,000 square miles above the average in a specific location. That's a 10x total decrease over the increase you're pointing out.

 

[Prutfis]

No, it's not. If you read my post winter sea ice is UP 30,000 square miles, right now, compared to average. (compared to 1990-2020 to be precise).

"The North America and Greenland snow cover extent was 17.66 million square kilometers (6.82 million square miles), which is 70,000 square kilometers (30,000 square miles) above the 1991-2020 average. This tied 1977 and 2019 as the 25th-largest snow cover extent for North America on record."

From the NOAA themselves: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-snow/202301

Snow cover is not the same as the iceshelf itself. You seem to be cherrypicking data that you don't understand

https://subscriber.politicopro.com/...way-warming-drives-greenland-melting-00061559


On the other end of the spectrum, Forrest fires in the northern hemisphere have doubled their co2 output due to increased numbers.

 

[therealdope]

I do my best not to hold to beliefs, especially ones as negative as this, but I'm pretty well convinced human civilization as we know it will collapse within the next 50 years due to a series of events related to climate change. Humanity as a whole will survive, but not the way we've been living and we're going to be going through a period of incredible suffering in the coming decades. My hope is that what emerges is a wiser humanity, one with more respect for our place as part of vast system of life on earth, but who knows.

Population growth, scarcity of water, and mass migration, are much more likely to cause a collapse in the next 50 yrs than warming temperatures.

I have my own hypothesis of the first first-person impact of climate change will be for the average poster here: air travel disruption.

Warming the top layer of the oceans a relatively small amount (and only the top layer needs to warm for massive impacts), could change jet streams and atmospheric dynamics at elevations that commercial air travel uses. Things would change significantly if routine air travel was untenable due to turbulence. you can only change air routes and flight plan elevation so much.

 

[Loiosh]

I see what your saying but I think there will be winners and losers, the parallel I would draw is the black death , afterwards things got much better for the average person, there will be massive upheaval but I don't think it's all doom and gloom .

The Black Death saved European forests.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The Black Death saved European forests.

Excellent podcast episode on Europe after the plague

 

[Bballfan123]

The permafrost is not increasing. There may be larger temperature extremes (highest and lowest) in the artic but overall the climate is warming. Permafrost forms in the winter but it also thaws and melts in the spring/summer/fall. If the spring/summer/fall are warmer and have a longer duration then permafrost will see a net loss over time.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...st-is-radically-changing-the-arctic-landscape

From this photo there seems to be a lot of warming in North Central Siberia. Not as much around the ACTUAL ice sheet, which is located in Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no ice sheet in North Central Siberia, there is sea ice but no actual miles-thick ice sheet. North Central Siberia IS warming rapidly, about that there is no doubt.

From that picture, so far, it seems like the actual ice sheet, located in Greenland, is not being affected AS MUCH.

From this photo I can see that there has been between -0.5 C to 1.5 C of warming. I personally think that the ice sheets are far more resilient than we believe them to be. I think they have their own micro-climate not replicated anywhere else in the world, as it would be incredibly difficult to model a miles-thick ice sheet. Nowhere else is going to behave the same. Sea ice won't behave the same as an ice sheet. Who knows, maybe in winter the increased snowfall rate from warmer water will offset the increased warming during summer from warmer air? I don't know. I'm just not as doom and gloom about the glaciers melting. I used to be, really looked at the data, and now not so much.

Can you admit that if you zoom in on the glacier you can see there is a negative temperature anomaly, colored in blue, in the central eastern portion of the island? Why is that happening? 2020 was one of the warmest years on record, there SHOULD NOT be a negative temperature anomaly over Greenland, located in the Arctic, which is the fastest warming region on Earth. But there is, and if you go back to other years it is always there. Why??? Very strange

I zoomed in on it here:

 

[Prutfis]

From this photo there seems to be a lot of warming in North Central Siberia. Not as much around the ACTUAL ice sheet, which is located in Greenland in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no ice sheet in North Central Siberia, there is sea ice but no actual miles-thick ice sheet. North Central Siberia IS warming rapidly, about that there is no doubt.

From that picture, so far, it seems like the actual ice sheet, located in Greenland, is not being affected AS MUCH.

From this photo I can see that there has been between -0.5 C to 1.5 C of warming. I personally think that the ice sheets are far more resilient than we believe them to be. I think they have their own micro-climate not replicated anywhere else in the world, as it would be incredibly difficult to model a miles-thick ice sheet. Nowhere else is going to behave the same. Sea ice won't behave the same as an ice sheet. Who knows, maybe in winter the increased snowfall rate from warmer water will offset the increased warming during summer from warmer air? I don't know. I'm just not as doom and gloom about the glaciers melting. I used to be, really looked at the data, and now not so much.

Can you admit that if you zoom in on the glacier you can see there is a negative temperature anomaly, colored in blue, in the central eastern portion of the island? Why is that happening? 2020 was one of the warmest years on record, there SHOULD NOT be a negative temperature anomaly over Greenland, located in the Arctic, which is the fastest warming region on Earth. But there is, and if you go back to other years it is always there. Why??? Very strange

I zoomed in on it here:

Siberia has a lot of permafrost. It's very bad that it's heating up. Release of methane etc.
I'll repeat, 250 billion metric tons every year of the Greenland iceshelf is melting and its accelerating. This causes rising sea levels but more importantly desalination. The major ocean currents will be effected and that's another major bummer.
You seem to already have determined what answers you want and cherrypick data that you clearly don't understand.
And we haven't even gone over the destruction of bio diversity yet. Another area that's looking pretty bleak

 

[dirtypablo]

Population growth, scarcity of water, and mass migration, are much more likely to cause a collapse in the next 50 yrs than warming temperatures.

I have my own hypothesis of the first first-person impact of climate change will be for the average poster here: air travel disruption.

Warming the top layer of the oceans a relatively small amount (and only the top layer needs to warm for massive impacts), could change jet streams and atmospheric dynamics at elevations that commercial air travel uses. Things would change significantly if routine air travel was untenable due to turbulence. you can only change air routes and flight plan elevation so much.

I certainly don't think that 'warming temperatures' are going to cause a collapse, its all the things that those warming temperatures will bring. As you mentioned, the disruption of the ocean currents via warming of both the oceans as a whole and the artic will massively disrupt the jet stream, which will have all sorts of secondary effects - widespread droughts, which will lead to massive reductions in global food supply, leading to huge increases in the cost of food and more migrations, which will cause all sorts of civil unrest in addition to widespread of disease due to millions of people living in unsanitary conditions as they migrate. Then you have things like the potential for collapse of the oceans ecosystems, which would decimate the fishing industry leading to more food shortages and more people being put out of work, again, leading to more migrations and civil unrest. Then, there is the increased risk of new pandemics due to more wildlife mixing with humans due to habitat loss as well as the potential for bacteria and viruses currently locked in permafrost making its way into human populations. With covid, we saw just how fragile and interlinked the global production system is, shortages with one part led to all sorts of secondary shortages and delays in other systems that used that part, leading to more shortages - what will happen when China is hit with a heatwave much worse than the record setting one this last summer that caused them to shutdown factories because of reduced power output? Or a bunch of factories in Bangladesh stop running because their society is collapsing because so many people are leaving due to the constant catastrophic flooding? I could go on and on about all the potential things that are likely to happen, but the important thing is that all of these things are going to be happening in parallel to each other, and its not going to be like covid where things shut down for a short time then we get back on with it - every year things are just going to get worse and worse.