• While Stormtrack has discontinued its hosting of SpotterNetwork support on the forums, keep in mind that support for SpotterNetwork issues is available by emailing [email protected].

Climate Change in 2025

No doubt there is climate change....
I agree with you, Warren. FWIW, here's my 2-cents worth to close out the old and ring in the new year.

When I posted this article, I was expecting the usual political backlash from the climate deniers ["Climate change is an alarmist, left-leaning agenda pushed by all mainstream media to promote a "green energy" economy!"] or from the believers in climate science ["One year does not a climate trend make, but humankind should at least keep an open mind to what the numbers are apparently telling us!"]. But, in the meantime, nothing significant on the global scale (and certainly not in the U.S., given the present administration's antagonistic stance on climate) will be done to change the course we're on. So the controversy will just continue to rage onward well into the foreseeable future...

Happy New Year, everyone!!
 
Last edited:
The bigger question is how to fix the problem. That becomes the political divide. Politicians have made billions off insider trading which has corrupted the process and twisted the science towards profits, not solutions. For example, small, modern nuclear power plants are safe and don't have the waste issues older plants have. However, unlike solar panels and turbine power which offer big profits as an industry, new nuclear plants don't. Forcing or punishing people to drive electric vehicles is also a poor option as there is simply not enough rare earths to do it.
 
The bigger question is how to fix the problem.
It very likely won't be fixed, at least in our lifetime. Because we, as Americans, are too used to our "creature comforts" and gas-guzzling "road tanks" (SUVs) and don't want to give them up, we will not be incentivized to change our consumptive, wasteful, carbon-emitting ways (all which affect our atmosphere cumulatively over a long period of time). Around the world, however, several western European (UK, France, Germany, Sweden) and Pacific Rim (Japan, South Korea) countries have been "greening" their energy production and reducing consumption for many decades now. The problem is that the biggest carbon/greenhouse gas producers and emitters in the world (U.S. and China) produce so much airborne particulates and greenhouse gases that the "green energy" countries have been unable to make any meaningful (if even measurable) headway toward reducing overall adverse effects to the atmosphere on the global scale over the many decades (if not centuries) that surface atmospheric temperature measurements have been taken. And political intervention by major powers within international climate agreements (such as, sadly, is happening currently with the U.S.) only results in creating more dysfunction, rather than working cooperatively toward finding a real solution.

To make any significant headway against this global problem, all industrialized nations must commit in everyday, real-life practice to doing whatever it takes in terms of social-behavior change to cut carbon and greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Ditto for less-developed countries where animal flatulence is also a big source of and contributor to atmospheric emission. However, because the human race is what it is--let's be realistic--a cooperative international solution is more likely doomed for failure than success. So...it's up to humanity, individually and collectively, to save our planet and atmosphere that we all must depend upon to survive. The "sixty-four-thousand-dollar question" is: "Will we...?"
 
Back
Top