The idea that all the countries were going to get together to "fix the weather" is nonsense and was from the very start.
China, India and multiple other countries carried on regardless whilst the EU in particular have virtue signalled their way towards industrial suicide.
Just a few things to think about.
- Is "global warming" real -- absolutely. If it weren't we'd still be in the last Ice Age.
- Do humans burning coal oil and gas contribute to that. Possibly- though the measurements are primarily on land and most of earth is sea.... They are also open to a lot of interpretation as they are built on averages of averages and that's not good. But still let's take it at face value
- Does additional; Co2 also increase the number of green plants to suck up that Co2. Almost certainly and that is hard to factor in and has been rather ignored / underplayed in the models
- Will that negate the effect of the additional Co2. Maybe. or maybe not.
- Do people trust the science of Global Warming and the computer models it is mostly based on. Not really. After the COVID " Science" and "Best computer modelling" debacle that's hardly a surprise, is it?
So --- Is there anything we can do. Yes.
Use our technological advancement to adapt as required. Humans survived the last ice Age with fire, animal furs, rocks and pointy sticks. Even if the dire predictions were to come true it's nothing we cannot handle.
Doomers begone. Stop your hand wringing and get inventing
The term climate change is a corruption of language. The issue is global warming. All the studies and proposed policies are about that. If you want to talk about the global climate, fine, but global climate is an amalgamation of many local and regional climates. El Nino most definitely climate and has been for hundreds of years that we know about. The drought current afflicting the American West is also climate and has been a cyclic factor as far back as Ancestral Puebloans. Neither one of them have anything to do with carbon emissions. Climate in a local are varies greatly with elevation.
And if man doesn’t like the way climate is or is changing then it’s our responsibility to maintain the status quo or develop a new technology to overcome the climate. So the two most important technologies that allowed people to live year round in what were considered inhospitable climates (LA, Vegas, South Florida) were huge concrete dams and reservoirs and air conditioning. So when Sacramento and Tallahassee and Carson City were founded they were thought to be in the center of the respective states’ population centers…and then we developed new technologies that made new land hospitable year round. So it’s up to us to build infrastructure that fills up Lake Mead which would solve a lot of the climate problems. Highly efficient mini splits solve the problem of LA getting hotter because heat has always been necessary and mini split heat pumps provide heat and cooling.
I don't want to be rude, but this article is riddled with errors. It needs a thorough rewrite. To pick just 2 examples:
1. "Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible."
I presume you are referring to RCP 8.5 and to a lesser extent 7.0. These "high-end warmings" were never realistic in the first place. There were scientists who called this out at the time because they studied the scenarios and realized that they were based on assumptions (like unrealistic growth rates for coal consumption) which were out of touch with reality. Even the original scenario developers developed these to serve as stress tests to understand climate model performance rather than as predictions of the future. However, other climate scientists latched on to them and called them "business as usual" scenarios because they provided results which they found much more useful for political purposes.
2. The field of attribution studies is riddled with conflicts of interest and has massive methodological issues. This is "research" explicitly designed to serve legal and political ends. It's amazing how its proponents claim that they can attribute a single event like a major flood to climate change when the IPCC or other research says that they can't even detect a change in incidence at all.
If you want a realistic perspective on climate change, please have Roger Pielke, Jr. write an article in this series.
Discussing this without mentioning the corruption of the surface temperature record is interesting.
I recommend your readers look at the satellite record which goes back 47 years now. See drroyspencer.com. Dr Spencer measures 1.7 degrees Celsius per century.
When did science begin to matter to the "new" right? RFK is Mr Measles, Musk’s DOGE fiasco hollowed out scientific research, and Don assured us climate change ''twas merely a hoax. It’s the actions of people in power that matter, not the retroactive fig leaves concocted by establishment elites in think tanks. It’s unfathomable that this administration cares or will take any significant action on these issues. They’re too busy hoovering up corrupt crypto cash, plastering Don’s name on things, fighting MAGA’s Middle East war, randomly taco tariffing, breaking their own debt records, spreading election lies, covering up the Trump/Epstein files, jettisoning our allies, and sending masked, tactically armed federal agents to hunt down our brown, non-criminal neighbors for shipment to foreign prisons. Science and math isn’t their strong suit…
I think this article underplays the long-term risk even if we cannot quantify it precisely. The USA can afford to and should take much more aggressive measures to mitigate the risk including things like raising gasoline taxes, ending the use of coal, encouraging (and subsidizing) the use of nuclear, wind and solar and supporting public transportation to pick a few options.
This article may leave people feeling that there is no urgency here.
You're falling into a logical fallacy. Not saying we shouldn't keep researching stuff but once you start subsidizing alternative energy, you just lower the price of oil and gas. That in turn only encourages more use of fossil fuels in Africa and South America, so to speak.
The reality, and it's coming, is that unless an alternative is profitable in it's own right, efforts to subsidize or mandate it's use will only lead to delaying the actual solutions. This is pretty well understood but often ignored reality. Once you start subsidizing and mandating, the need to spend ever more on lobbying to protect the subsidies crowds out the money that should have gone to innovation.
For my money, I think using fracking to create geothermal powers plant is going to be a big part of the solution. Then it will be bio-engineering that both creates bio-fuels but also drastically increases crop yields, freeing up millions of acres of current farmland. The added benefit will be that not all the carbon pulled out of the atmosphere will be reburned, some portion will be used to create building materials or in other ways start locking that carbon out of the atmosphere.
What does that or the article have to do with data centers, fishers or hunters or teddy's conservation work? What does it have anything to do with humans or right or left? It's just regurgitating exactly what the first article argued against. I feel the exact urgency as I did 10 years ago and 20 years ago.
The idea that all the countries were going to get together to "fix the weather" is nonsense and was from the very start.
China, India and multiple other countries carried on regardless whilst the EU in particular have virtue signalled their way towards industrial suicide.
Just a few things to think about.
- Is "global warming" real -- absolutely. If it weren't we'd still be in the last Ice Age.
- Do humans burning coal oil and gas contribute to that. Possibly- though the measurements are primarily on land and most of earth is sea.... They are also open to a lot of interpretation as they are built on averages of averages and that's not good. But still let's take it at face value
- Does additional; Co2 also increase the number of green plants to suck up that Co2. Almost certainly and that is hard to factor in and has been rather ignored / underplayed in the models
- Will that negate the effect of the additional Co2. Maybe. or maybe not.
- Do people trust the science of Global Warming and the computer models it is mostly based on. Not really. After the COVID " Science" and "Best computer modelling" debacle that's hardly a surprise, is it?
So --- Is there anything we can do. Yes.
Use our technological advancement to adapt as required. Humans survived the last ice Age with fire, animal furs, rocks and pointy sticks. Even if the dire predictions were to come true it's nothing we cannot handle.
Doomers begone. Stop your hand wringing and get inventing
The term climate change is a corruption of language. The issue is global warming. All the studies and proposed policies are about that. If you want to talk about the global climate, fine, but global climate is an amalgamation of many local and regional climates. El Nino most definitely climate and has been for hundreds of years that we know about. The drought current afflicting the American West is also climate and has been a cyclic factor as far back as Ancestral Puebloans. Neither one of them have anything to do with carbon emissions. Climate in a local are varies greatly with elevation.
And if man doesn’t like the way climate is or is changing then it’s our responsibility to maintain the status quo or develop a new technology to overcome the climate. So the two most important technologies that allowed people to live year round in what were considered inhospitable climates (LA, Vegas, South Florida) were huge concrete dams and reservoirs and air conditioning. So when Sacramento and Tallahassee and Carson City were founded they were thought to be in the center of the respective states’ population centers…and then we developed new technologies that made new land hospitable year round. So it’s up to us to build infrastructure that fills up Lake Mead which would solve a lot of the climate problems. Highly efficient mini splits solve the problem of LA getting hotter because heat has always been necessary and mini split heat pumps provide heat and cooling.
I don't want to be rude, but this article is riddled with errors. It needs a thorough rewrite. To pick just 2 examples:
1. "Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible."
I presume you are referring to RCP 8.5 and to a lesser extent 7.0. These "high-end warmings" were never realistic in the first place. There were scientists who called this out at the time because they studied the scenarios and realized that they were based on assumptions (like unrealistic growth rates for coal consumption) which were out of touch with reality. Even the original scenario developers developed these to serve as stress tests to understand climate model performance rather than as predictions of the future. However, other climate scientists latched on to them and called them "business as usual" scenarios because they provided results which they found much more useful for political purposes.
2. The field of attribution studies is riddled with conflicts of interest and has massive methodological issues. This is "research" explicitly designed to serve legal and political ends. It's amazing how its proponents claim that they can attribute a single event like a major flood to climate change when the IPCC or other research says that they can't even detect a change in incidence at all.
If you want a realistic perspective on climate change, please have Roger Pielke, Jr. write an article in this series.
Discussing this without mentioning the corruption of the surface temperature record is interesting.
I recommend your readers look at the satellite record which goes back 47 years now. See drroyspencer.com. Dr Spencer measures 1.7 degrees Celsius per century.
We should plan on the Basis of this.
When did science begin to matter to the "new" right? RFK is Mr Measles, Musk’s DOGE fiasco hollowed out scientific research, and Don assured us climate change ''twas merely a hoax. It’s the actions of people in power that matter, not the retroactive fig leaves concocted by establishment elites in think tanks. It’s unfathomable that this administration cares or will take any significant action on these issues. They’re too busy hoovering up corrupt crypto cash, plastering Don’s name on things, fighting MAGA’s Middle East war, randomly taco tariffing, breaking their own debt records, spreading election lies, covering up the Trump/Epstein files, jettisoning our allies, and sending masked, tactically armed federal agents to hunt down our brown, non-criminal neighbors for shipment to foreign prisons. Science and math isn’t their strong suit…
Whatever happens to the climate, we humans keep on keeping on by adaptation.
How do we adapt to changes in the climate?
Of course, in the long run, we humans are in an interglacial period in an Ice Age.
What does that mean, and how do we adapt?
I think this article underplays the long-term risk even if we cannot quantify it precisely. The USA can afford to and should take much more aggressive measures to mitigate the risk including things like raising gasoline taxes, ending the use of coal, encouraging (and subsidizing) the use of nuclear, wind and solar and supporting public transportation to pick a few options.
This article may leave people feeling that there is no urgency here.
You're falling into a logical fallacy. Not saying we shouldn't keep researching stuff but once you start subsidizing alternative energy, you just lower the price of oil and gas. That in turn only encourages more use of fossil fuels in Africa and South America, so to speak.
The reality, and it's coming, is that unless an alternative is profitable in it's own right, efforts to subsidize or mandate it's use will only lead to delaying the actual solutions. This is pretty well understood but often ignored reality. Once you start subsidizing and mandating, the need to spend ever more on lobbying to protect the subsidies crowds out the money that should have gone to innovation.
For my money, I think using fracking to create geothermal powers plant is going to be a big part of the solution. Then it will be bio-engineering that both creates bio-fuels but also drastically increases crop yields, freeing up millions of acres of current farmland. The added benefit will be that not all the carbon pulled out of the atmosphere will be reburned, some portion will be used to create building materials or in other ways start locking that carbon out of the atmosphere.
What does that or the article have to do with data centers, fishers or hunters or teddy's conservation work? What does it have anything to do with humans or right or left? It's just regurgitating exactly what the first article argued against. I feel the exact urgency as I did 10 years ago and 20 years ago.