Looking for respectful opinions about global warming

Jun 19, 2005
790
40
6
New Mexico
BACK TO SCIENCE: IF only a handful of western nations contribute to reversing climate change, does anyone know if that will be enough to save the planet? (That is a real question, not a snarky one)
What about encouraging the development of technology that produces less greenhouse emissions, that we could show the rest of the world how to use, or heck maybe sell. Battery tech development, maybe a new look at a hydrogen-nuclear economy? Curious how we say the USA is number one, can do anything it sets out to do, but this whoa...
 
Jun 19, 2005
790
40
6
New Mexico
Answer to #2 question posed to me a day or two ago... No deforestation is not the main driver of AGW. Emissions from deforestation is approximately 6 GtCO2/yr, that only accounts for ~15% of the CO2 change we are seeing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary Latimer
Gary Latimer, the US, Canada, UK, and Australia are all among the top 20 countries in total carbon emissions, with the US being the second-highest behind only China. And on a per capita basis, the US, Canada, and Australia are pretty much at the top. So if all of these countries substantially reduced their emissions, it would make a difference. Yes, countries like China, Russia, and India are also high on total emissions (though not so much on a per capita basis), so to sufficiently reduce world emissions levels they will have to get on board, too. That is what made the Paris Agreement so important, because it got virtually every country in the world on board to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - many different countries with many different economies, situations, and GDP levels - and why it is now so unfortunate that the US has left the agreement. Yes, you can argue this agreement does not do enough to stop the current rate of climate change, but climate-wise we would clearly be better off with it than without it. Another way of putting it might to be say that doing half of what we need to do is not sufficient, but it is better than doing a quarter of what we need to do. If you want to see the top 20 countries in the world in CO2 emissions, you can follow this link:

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
 
May 30, 2019
13
12
1
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Absolutely. But we're still at the stage where most of the people in a position to do the most good don't believe that there's an issue.
I was watching the DNC Presidential Debates last night (7/30/19 Part 1) on CNN, and I forget which candidate it was, but one of the candidates stated that he wants to create all green energy / renewable energy in the US, but he said one other thing that I found interesting:

DEVELOP A C02 EXCHANGER THAT "FILTERS" (???) or "EXCHANGES" C02 EMISSIONS.

I know there are agriculture methods that can do this. But to the actual scientists here: Is this even something that is possible to create and operate "at scale"? I mean if so, then problem solved. Turn on the C02-Exchangers, and there we go! Climate change reversal!

(Sadly, I don't believe for one second this will end up being a solution... for one, such machinery will take some form of energy to operate... so... unless its nuclear, I am not sure a "C02-Exchanger" will actually end up being so "green".)

I am all for it if it works, and doesn't end up killing wildlife in the process (like wind-farms are doing now; unintended consequences all over the place where they are installed). So in that spirit, has anyone seen / read / heard about any promising technologies to reverse any human climate change? (again, serious question)
 

NancyM

EF0
Jun 14, 2013
49
27
11
Let's take a step back and approach this from a different perspective. There is a decision to be made about how we proceed. So:

If we do address global warming using various methods and it turns out that global warming isn't a problem, what are the worst consequences?

Conversely, if we don't address global warming and it turns out that global warming is happening and progressing, what are the worst consequences?
 
Last edited:
I have been living very eco friendly the past 5 years. I spend most of my time outdoors between parks and beaches. Camping and living off the land. I have less miles on my vehicle in one year, than the average storm chaser puts on in a few weeks. I won't buy a vehicle that burns gas below 30 mpg.

What really burns me, is that the people who scream the loudest about saving the planet, are the ones abusing it more. Mega jets, huge yachts, large ocean side mansions. (I thought the sea was rising).

A-listers flock to Google summit in private jets, mega yachts to talk climate change
 

Jeff Duda

Resident meteorological expert
Staff member
Oct 7, 2008
3,046
1,573
21
Westminster, CO
www.meteor.iastate.edu
Let's take a step back and approach this from a different perspective. There is a decision to be made about how we proceed. So:

If we do address global warming using various methods and it turns out that global warming isn't a problem, what are the worst consequences?

Conversely, if we don't address global warming and it turns out that global warming is happening and progressing, what are the worst consequences?
I agree. There is an asymmetric penalty associated with falsely prepping for something that turns out not to be a big deal vs. not preparing for something that ends up being a huge problem.
 
Jun 19, 2005
790
40
6
New Mexico
Let's take a step back and approach this from a different perspective. There is a decision to be made about how we proceed. So:

If we do address global warming using various methods and it turns out that global warming isn't a problem, what are the worst consequences?

Conversely, if we don't address global warming and it turns out that global warming is happening and progressing, what are the worst consequences?
There's predictions, but there is uncertainty. Just like how with the 737 MAX, the addition of a stall safety feature should improve the system. There are feedbacks in our atmosphere system as well, and while you can say they could help mitigate warming, there are many ways they could enhance. That's the thing, this is a risk to the system that can not be tested. Usually we can test the system like with aircraft, except here there is only one.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JamesCaruso

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,961
482
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
I'm not completely sure that's a valid comparison... Climate change is primarily due to human-caused emissions. We don't need to "test" the hypothesis that reducing those emissions will help reduce future warming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jenn Staib
Jun 19, 2005
790
40
6
New Mexico
I'm not completely sure that's a valid comparison... Climate change is primarily due to human-caused emissions. We don't need to "test" the hypothesis that reducing those emissions will help reduce future warming.
I'm not arguing for warming not occuring. I'm saying uncertainty mitigation is just as equally a valid point for not increasing greenhouse gases. Small changes to large systems can have unpredictable consequences, sometimes large. Often testing, in the engineering world, is conducted to make sure that a small change doesn't lead to an unexpected large consequence. As Rumsfeld said, there are unknown unknowns.
 

Gordon R Maddison

Enthusiast
Mar 30, 2017
1
5
1
Davie, Florida
LOL. What are lawyers and politicians going to try next? Brain Surgery? Leave the cutting to the surgeons and the science to scientists! It's time we stopped the silliness and just agree that Global Warming is indeed happening. This July was the hottest, not only on record, but in the geological sense, in world history! Maybe we should stop worrying who is at fault and just do what we can to slow it down a bit!!

BTW, I AM a meteorologist.
 
More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.
 

rdale

EF5
Mar 1, 2004
6,961
482
21
49
Lansing, MI
skywatch.org
(Link to a press release deleted - never carry a scientific discussion based on a press release, especially one with such glaring errors)
This was known to be coming. The first signature comes from a former Shell Oil engineer who does not study climate. As a matter of fact almost everyone who has signed this editorial (which as a reminder is how you discuss politics - not science) has ZERO background in climate. Or even science.

 
  • Like
Reactions: NancyM