Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Yeh. I better that fusion tech would be available within the next 100 years. Batteries will be replaced with tiny LENR reactors and would power almost anything. Much like the power core in fallout. Seems feasible based on the technological progress and Moores law in general. We are already approaching the singularity



I was thinking of carbon scrubbers being a thing within the next 50 years.

 

To know if humans are driving climate change, we must first know to what degree humans have an effect on it. To know that, we must compare all the green house gasses that is put out by nature to what is put out by humans. There isn't a single in depth study regarding that.

If we agree on this, then we can't know if human activity is attributing much. Is it half a bucket? Is it a drop in the bucket? Is it less than that?

I personally think it's less than a drop. Nothing we do can compare to mother nature. Not the energy we can generate. Not the amount of green houses we can emit.

 

Sure. I’m happy to now that we have established you are not well informed on the subject. If you were you would not have asked me your question and you would have answered mine. I just wanted you on record as uninformed on one of the most important statistics relating to this issue. Don’t feel bad, you are not in the minority.

First, here is probably one of the best rundowns of potential for reforestation/afforestation as a carbon sequestration method.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848

You will note if you look at the link it was subjected to quite a lot of criticism. Yet the conclusions after corrections and clarifications are solid enough to be cited by the UN FAO and many other respected organizations. One correction was an error that when corrected increased the projected carbon storage potential.

Here are the some quotes from the abstract and intro.

Of course it’s not all about CO2 either contrary to popular belief. Forests have a net cooling effect beyond carbon sequestration.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115/full

That’s just a taste of what’s out there in the world or real science concerning potential of forests.

Here is a bit from the World Economic Forum climate action division referencing the IPCC. I know how ya’ll love the IPCC.

Of course your question is a strawman, but a very poorly constructed one because the answer to your strawman question is the opposite of what you expected! There are many studies from respected “science sites” showing forests can (and should) be key tools.

I will add focusing on trees/forests exclusively is incorrect. I’ve long advocated for other carbon sequestration methods and global/local cooling methods. Trees are important but only one key on a massive ring of keys we have to unlock better climatic conditions locally and globally.

 

I have explained my position make of it what you will, I no longer value your opinion.

 

Look it up. The luddites even invented a gas powered radio as radio was very popular and obviously worked better on electricity.
You see you are no alone in being left behind, that's reassuring isn't it.

 

That’s fine. In fact I’m pleased because I don’t want my “opinions” valued. I’m not offering opinions. I am here to educate on the evidence, not spout opinions. Science isn’t opinions. It’s sad so many wish to base global policy on personnel unsubstantiated opinions. I hope this wonderful, invaluable thing we refer to as science can survive a society that places no value on evidence. I’ll be around to make sure correct, evidence based information is available to those who wish to choose it over unsubstantiated opinions.

I offered one opinion in this thread over the last several days and I made sure to specify it was my opinion. Nobody disputed the opinion. The evidence I’ve provided substantiated with official data and peer reviewed research has been soundly rejected. And as usual nobody else can substantiate their claims with evidence. I’m saddened to see so many intelligent, compassionate people deny science, but I’ve been here long enough to not be a bit surprised.

 

Your facts are so selective they amount to no more than opinion. You are a climate change denier in a poor disguise, you claim a balanced view yet always select data that supports a certain view point. There is a huge amount of data proving AGW is happening right now, yet somehow such data does not catch your eye. I see through you. .

 

LOL. Sure. I’m an AGW denier that spent a lot of time just in this thread educating you on AGW biophysical pathways you didn’t know existed! The rest of the time I spent offering evidence based solutions founded in decades of peer reviewed research to problems you say I deny even exist.

My facts are not selective. I accept all facts. You reject most. As I often point out, if my facts were cherry picked you and others would easily be able to provide contradicting evidence. The reason my information looks lopsided is because it’s me correcting errors made by you and others. I’m not going to agree with false information. You never can present evidence I’m incorrect, only unsubstantiated opinions and the lame, lame strawman that I’m a climate change denier.

The reason my information looks lopsided at times is because it’s me correcting errors made by you and others. If you were factual I wouldn’t need to post conflicting evidence. I’m not going to agree with false information that someone else cherry picked for you and you accepted even though it conflicts with evidence.

LOL. Sure, I’m a climate change denier that exposes AGW pathways you’ve never heard of and offers solutions to ones you have heard of as well as the ones you haven’t. A climate change denier that often points out SPECIFIC climatic changes, their anthropogenic causes and quantifies them and their effects on society and overall environment.

You are a smart guy experiencing cognitive dissonance right now. I understand your frustration and need to lash out with strawman arguments. It’s all good. No hard feelings.

 

You spent a lot of time saying there were no measurable effects from AGW. A lot of time telling people climate change is ordinary and warming good.

 

I could state that if the earth moves away from the sun it will cool, just as you can state that if Pakistan completely reforested itself it would cool. Both are facts, both irrelevant as they aren't going to happen. Neither change the fact that the world including Pakistan is 1.5c warmer than it should be.
You can lay out data that a temperature or wind speed has happened before while ignoring the frequency of such events.
You can pretend you don't understand how the same amount of rain can fall in one day or ten minutes, but one waters the land and the other flash flooding. that pours into the rivers and out to sea.
I am no longer convinced your driving force is just education.

 

The problem with your fanciful analogy is that electricity created a more capable power grid. Electricity creates a less capable vehicle.

 

Of course I spend a lot of time on the positive aspects of climate change. I care about people. I’m happy when a change allows more people to survive and thrive. Warming has many positive effects that are “good” if you care about human life. Why deny it?

Climate change is ordinary. Even anthropogenic climate change has been around for a long time. Since at least 1300 if not before.

Now, please use the PF quote function to supply a quote of ne telling anyone there are no measurable effects from AGW. Put up my man. Go…

 

Make sure you advise the Pakistanis to give up their one trillion tree initiative they are actually making pretty good progress on and advise them to instead pour resources into an earth/sun separation initiative.

While you have them on the line tell them exactly what temperature their country should be. Back up your opinions with data from 4 billion years showing 1.5°C less than today is exactly what their temp should be. Oh, and make sure to tell them there will be a great increase in mortality from temp exposure in their population at 1.5°C lower temp but that’s a good thing they will just have to deal with. Also tell them agricultural output will decrease substantially but they will just have to be happy with that as well.

I understand how to deal with precipitation quite well. There is no evidence of your claims on summer precipitation. None. Just a theoretical possibility what you say you observe today MAY be observable by 2080.

You got me. I’m actually the CEO of Exxon. LOL

If education wasn’t my intention I would parrot BS from one tribe or the other as there is plenty on both sides. Instead I present FACTUAL, VERIFIABLE information that angers many on both sides.

 

Back then they thought gas was a better choice. That's the trouble with luddites they have no imagination.

 

That's simple, because the temperatures don't conveniently stop climbing at the point you want them to.
But also because this is just another of your fact lies. A fact cold kills more people than heat, yes if taken in isolation like all your fact lies.
But the heat in Somalia caused drought and killed thousands and the heat in Nigeria caused floods that killed hundreds.
Meanwhile you say it helps nature, yep if you look selectively, but the penguins whose down is designed to protect them from snow is useless when that snow warms to rain.
As I say selective facts ordered to an agenda.

 

Nope. You're wrong again. EV's are just another Y2K.

 

Having spent time in both Nigeria and Somalia, I can say that floods and drought killed thousands long before planetary warming was even a concept.

 

Nope.

 

EV's will probably bankrupt GM. Ford has a smarter strategy.

 

Gosh who didn't know that, but we are seeing more events and more extremes and that's at just a 1.5c increase. If you got your way that average would climb by 4 or 5 c

 

Get real we all know GM problems are not Ev's

 

You just can't stop yourself, no one said don't plant trees.

 

No, we are not.

 

Nope. GM has committed to an all-EV line-up. Ford has not. Ford will survive; GM will not.

 

No one gives a hoot what the temperature was 4 billion years ago or even 4,000 years ago. They care what it was a hundred years ago when they started developing their agriculture and infrastructure.
What's more this is another of your fact lies where the temperature rises nicely by 1.5c with no side effects.