If his point is that some countries won't coöperate he obviously does have a point. Whatever Russia says in COP related meetings, it won't reduce its extraction of fossil fuels because its entire economy depends on exporting that stuff.

And Russia isn't alone. Most countries have been making promises that they apparently have no intention of fulfilling. The issue is internationally recognized at least since the Kyoto protocol of 1992. And emissions only have gone up since, eventhough the whole idea was to limit and reduce emissions... This is more than 30 years ago, why would things suddenly change now?

And if one looks deeper into the energy-economics of it, I think it quickly becomes apparent why we have failed. Fossil fuels are the economy. That's the dirtly little secret nobody wants to acknowledge... because acknowledging that ultimately also means acknowledging that we probably can't have a world with 8 billion people having a reasonably affluent modern life-style.

This is where all the cognitive dissonance comes from, from all sides of the political aisle... at some point the issue of climate change (and the ecological crisis more generally) clashes with some aspect of the ideology one holds dear. And then we tend to deny the things that clash with the ideology, because it's harder to change deep seated valuations and ideologies than denying reality. Conservatives will often flat-out deny climate change or deny the consequences, liberals and socialists will deny that we can't just change our economy by swapping out fossil fuels and keep our affluent life-styles at the same time... and greens will deny that we can't return to some prestine garden of eden type earth.

You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one. — unenlightened

That's the ticket. Its so simple.. We can all be nice to each other and all war will end ... and everyone will be happy. Then we can all grow flowers, and everyone will play with puppies, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows forever

at some point the issue of climate change (and the ecological crisis more generally) clashes with some aspect of the ideology one holds dear. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think that's it. I think people want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. They also want to combat climate change, but they really want cheap energy, vacations, and cars. It's ideology clashing with consumerism.

If his point is that some countries won't coöperate he obviously does have a point. — ChatteringMonkey

Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well.

Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well. — frank

I think we're going to need a world government with some teeth because there are existential issues that keep popping up: climate change, Ai, genetic engineering, nanotechnology.

Ok maybe I can buy that to some extend, a lot of people aren't really all that politically motivated at all.

But saying they want to combat climate change, isn't really true insofar as combatting climate change precisely entails less of these things they really want. That's a bit like saying, I want to be a top athlete, but I don't want to train for it... then you don't really want to be a top athlete.

I guess part of the problem is that contempory poltical ideologies give them justification for believing that they can have both consumerism as they have it now, and combat climate change at the same time. Maybe that's precisely part of their appeal, in democracies especially where the majority of votes determine who's in power.

If his point is that some countries won't coöperate he obviously does have a point.
— ChatteringMonkey

Yea, we'd need a global government probably. Or if a new power source was just so much better and cheaper than fossil fuels, that would do it as well. — frank

Yeah, but then a global goverment comes with its own set of problems, a heavy bureaucracy would be one of them. And a lot of power attracts all types of nasty figures invariably, so i'm not sure that would do it. But maybe some type of seperate organisation that gets funding and power specifically to tackle this problem could help... I don't know exactly.

It's not only about the raw energy, but also in what form it comes, how easy is it to use etc. Nuclear fission for instance probably can compete with fossil fuels on Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), but the problem is you can't turn it on or off at will like fossil fuel plants... it's mostly a base load, and what we need is peak power.

And maybe more importantly, we need fossil fuels not only for energy, but for all the derivatives, like plastics, chemicals, fertilizer etc etc etc... For instance we do not know how to make fertilizer in an economically viable way without natural gas. This means we need to rethink and remake our entire agriculture if we want to produce enough food without cheap fertilizer.

The same is true for most of the economic sectors. We literally need to rethink most of them from scratch, because they organically grew out of cheap and easy to use energy and the readily available waste and byproducts of refining oil and gas. It's hard to overstate the enormity of this exercise, because years of iterative innovation on these existing processes and enormous amounts of capital investements need to be throw away to basically start over.

Yeah, but then a global goverment comes with its own set of problems, a heavy bureaucracy would be one of them. And a lot of power attracts all types of nasty figures invariably, so i'm not sure that would do it. But maybe some type of seperate organisation that gets funding and power specifically to tackle this problem could help... I don't know exactly. — ChatteringMonkey

But corruption will be there no matter what we do. Some people are going to look for ways to exploit what exists to the detriment of others. That's just human. The thing about corruption, though, is that it depends on its host. It doesn't want to destroy the social order. It will act to protect it if need be, because it needs it.

That said, we'd probably need a new global religion as well, to glue the global order together. I think we're probably about due for one.

It's not only about the raw energy, but also in what form it comes, how easy is it to use etc. Nuclear fission for instance probably can compete with fossil fuels on Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), but the problem is you can't turn it on or off at will like fossil fuel plants... it's mostly a base load, and what we need is peak power.

And maybe more importantly, we need fossil fuels not only for energy, but for all the derivatives, like plastics, chemicals, fertilizer etc etc etc... For instance we do not know how to make fertilizer in an economically viable way without natural gas. This means we need to rethink and remake our entire agriculture if we want to produce enough food without cheap fertilizer.

The same is true for most of the economic sectors. We literally need to rethink most of them from scratch, because they organically grew out of cheap and easy to use energy and the readily available waste and byproducts of refining oil and gas. It's hard to overstate the enormity of this exercise, because years of iterative innovation on these existing processes and enormous amounts of capital investements need to be throw away to basically start over. — ChatteringMonkey

And I don't think this is the kind of change that we can engineer for ourselves. As you say, it's too deeply rooted in what and who we are. We can't preserve ourselves and our way of life. All we can do is bless future generations in their quest for life.

So it really comes down to this: how much faith do you have in your own species? People who hate humanity will just be bitter no matter what. People who love it and believe in human genius, will see that there's a way.

I think we're going to need a world government with some teeth because there are existential issues that keep popping up: climate change, Ai, genetic engineering, nanotechnology. — RogueAI

Bananas. People keep slipping on bananas. That too. :groan:

Bananas. People keep slipping on bananas. That too. :groan: — frank

Banana slippage is an existential threat?

So it really comes down to this: how much faith do you have in your own species? People who hate humanity will just be bitter no matter what. People who love it and believe in human genius, will see that there's a way. — frank

There's a third option. I think these problems precisly come from being to smart, from being to succesfull. We managed to outsmart the ecology we came from, outgrew and degraded it in the process... and may ultimately fail because we do still depend on it. Icarus was smart too...

Banana slippage is an existential threat? — RogueAI

Well, it could be.

There's a third option. I think these problems precisly come from being to from being to smart, from being to succesfull. We managed to outsmart the ecology we came from, outgrew and degraded it in the process... and may ultimately fail because we do still depend on it. Icarus was smart too... — ChatteringMonkey

Seems like Kurt Vonnegut mentioned that solution.

So you’ve gathered data and put it into a graph — which thousands of climate scientists have also done — Mikie

Your response shows that you don't really know much about climate-change/global-warming.

Do you know what the difference is between a temperature anomaly and an actual temperature?

Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies. They hardly ever tell the public about actual temperatures (unless it is a high actual temperature).

Why? Because global-warming looks a lot less scary when you look at actual temperatures.

To calculate temperature anomalies you need to use actual temperatures. So climate scientists already have the actual temperatures available with no extra work. But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public.

That is why I have put a lot of work into finding the actual temperatures for each country/location.

The following map shows the actual temperatures for the Earth in January. This is the Northern Hemisphere Winter and the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

The resolution of this map is 2 degrees latitude by 2 degrees longitude. The same resolution as the GISTEMP temperature anomaly data.

Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold.

What a fucking goose you are.

Yes, it's cold in winter. :roll:

What a fucking goose you are. — Banno

A very cold goose who wants some global-warming :sad:

There are a lot of geese who want the same as me.

"Sea ice around Antarctica reached its lowest extent on February 21, 2023, at 1.79 million square kilometers (691,000 square miles). That’s 130,000 square kilometers (50,000 square miles) below the previous record-low reached on February 25, 2022—a difference that equates to an area about the size of New York state."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151093/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-another-record-low

You left out some important information from the webpage that you quoted.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151093/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-another-record-low

In February 2023, sea ice around Antarctica reached the lowest extent ever observed since the start of the satellite record in 1979. But despite several recent years of low extents, the long-term trend for sea ice in southern polar waters is essentially flat; it is the declines in sea ice at the other pole—in the Arctic—that are pushing the global sea ice trend downward.

it is the declines in sea ice at the other pole—in the Arctic—that are pushing the global sea ice trend downward.

Yes, the global sea ice decline is worrisome, don't you think?

Your response shows that you don't really know much about climate-change/global-warming. — Agree to Disagree

Yet, a few sentences later:

Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies. — Agree to Disagree

Care to give any examples whatsoever?

Anyway, this is yet another denialist claim— i.e., the climate scientists aren’t being truthful with the public or giving the whole story. Usually it’s confined to the liberal media, not scientists themselves— but you take it a step further.

Anyway, you’re wrong. What you’re referring to is talk about average global temperatures. Anomalies are certainly seen on this level, yes. Which is why year after year breaks records (of measurements that began in the late 19th century).

You’re just confused about “anomalies”, apparently thinking scientists only report on the specific areas that are breaking heat records (which also explains your odd obsession with the “coldness” of Russia). This doesn’t even make sense, though, when you contrast it with “actual” temperatures: even high temperatures that break records (“anomalies”) are “actual”: they’re as real as any other temperature.

The real contrast to “actual” would be “speculative” in some sense, or perhaps somehow based on modeling (opposed to “real” thermometer readings).

So nothing you’re saying makes sense.

Here are the facts:

- global average temperature has increased rapidly
- global CO2 emissions has increased rapidly since the Industrial Revolution

As CO2 increases, temperature increases. Hence why the average goes up. An average means there will be some areas that are still cold, even very cold (like Russia, Greenland, Canada, the Antarctic, parts of Alaska, parts of Argentina, etc.).

But they have chosen to "hide" the actual temperatures from the public. — Agree to Disagree

Again— this is a climate denial argument. Somehow climate change isn’t “scary” (and perhaps not even real) because scientists are withholding information or are deliberately scaring the public.

What examples do you have? What could you possibly mean by “actual” temperatures? The temperature today in New Hampshire was a high of 79 and a low of 54. Which one is “actual”? If the average temperature today was 65, is that not real?

Look at all of the purple and blue color in the Northern Hemisphere. Purple represents actual temperatures less than zero degrees Celsius. Literally freezing cold. — Agree to Disagree

Yes…and?? What is your point? And are these averages for January? Are averages “actual” temperatures? If so, then that’s exactly what climate scientists talk about — which you claimed they don’t. They report on average global temperatures for each year — which is what you hear about in the news.

Yes, it's cold in winter. :roll: — Banno

I’m glad I’m not the only one who recognizes how ridiculous this is.

Your interlocutor's pretence of rationality is risible. It's dubious that such oxygen thieves deserve any sort of interaction, let alone attempting to explain science to them. It's not going anywhere, and has the unintended consequence of providing them a platform.

Best to laugh and walk away.

Best to laugh and walk away. — Banno

You’re more restrained than I am. This is a particularly important issue for me — which also makes it difficult to discuss with people who so arrogantly display their ignorance.

I'd say pick your fight. If, after you explain climate change so cogently, the reply is a verbose "But it's cold in winter", then you are wasting time that might be spent on folk who can think.

Best to laugh and walk away. — Banno

You and Mikie usually respond to my posts with insults rather than intelligent discussion.

It is almost like I was questioning your religion.

Now, who would have predicted such a witty, erudite and original response.

Now, who would have predicted such a witty, erudite and original response. — Banno

We geese are intelligent enough to migrate when things get too cold. We fly to locations that are nice and warm. Because warmth is much much better than cold.

If humans cause a bit more global-warming then we geese won't have to waste all of that energy flying. We can stay in a warm paradise without needing to migrate.

If geese drove cars then they would fill them with goose-oline. :rofl:

What does an Egyptian goose say?

I'm in denial !!! :rofl:

In case you don't get it, "denial" = "de Nile" = "the Nile (river)"

Climate scientists almost always only tell the public about temperature anomalies.
— Agree to Disagree

Care to give any examples whatsoever? — Mikie

If you don't know this then you don't know much about climate-change/global-warming.

Try looking at this webpage from NASA GISTEMP. You only need to read the first bit, under the heading "The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT)".

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

Agree to Disagree pointed out that addressing climate change may not be possible due to a lack of global unity. As others already pointed out, this is true.

Did you have something to add other than insults?

Is your position that we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels and nothing bad will happen? Doesn't that seem a little naive, even without getting into the science?

And why does the spellchecker not recognize "naive"?