Yeah, but it's like, we can live with less plastic, I'm honestly really sure about that. Can we live with less transportation or less electricity? I'm not so sure. — Arcane Sandwich

Ah, okay. That makes sense.

What are your own thoughts on that? — Arcane Sandwich

You’re basically right— but it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives.

With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy.

it’s very tough to live without plastics. They now play a major role in the world. Not talking about straws, of course, but medical equipment, etc. But yes, we can ween ourselves off of them and find alternatives. — Mikie

It's a real mindfuck if you think about it, like, this isn't politics anymore. This is straight-up ecology, from the plastic in the ocean to the plastic in your hospitals.

I guess "rabbit hole" is the more appropriate philosophical term, but no. This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. I say that as a proponent of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

With electricity and transportation— of course we can’t live without those things. But in those cases the solutions are plentiful to reduce emissions. There’s public transportation, EVs, and renewable energy. — Mikie

:100:

And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible.

And yeah, when I said "scientific prediction", I said what I said. I didn't stutter.

This one, this specific problem in Ethics, is a complete mindfuck. — Arcane Sandwich

Let me add something to this. It's not OK that this problem is a mindfuck. We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. That's all I'm saying, as far as the topic of "respect vs disrespect" goes.

I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025 — Arcane Sandwich

One of the problems with your statement is that many people are not interested in having a conversation or discussion. The evangelists (like Mikie) are only interested in preaching, and they are not interested in listening.

Mikie always calls me a "denier" whenever I say something that he doesn't like or agree with. I don't deny that global warming and climate change are happening. Mikie won't discuss what I am saying, he just tries to shut me up by insulting me. It doesn't work, and it makes me think that nothing that Mikie says is worth listening to.

I would like to be able to have adult discussions without name calling. But they don't happen very often.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. I mean, it sounds like a problem between you and Mikie, specifically. I can't do anything about that. And even if I could, I don't want to. There's better uses of my time. Just work it out between yourselves.

And in my case, I sincerely believe that renewable energy is the political topic of conversation today, in 2025. I could be wrong though, a scientific prediction isn't necessarily infallible. — Arcane Sandwich

What scientific prediction are you referring to?

And yes, renewable enjoy is an interesting topic. They’ve become cheaper and more efficient. At this point the problem is the fossil fuel lobby and its propaganda, who want everyone to stay hooked on their products as long as possible (see tobacco companies in previous decades for nearly identical situation) — and political willpower.

Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal — all excellent. Most are cheaper than fossil fuels. The emissions and environmental cost in their production (like giant wind turbines) are all front-heavy, but once they’re built there’s no emissions and they offset the negative effects in a few years. Thec technology is there, we just have to start building — and that’s not always easy, especially in a stupid country where the government is run by reality-denying fossil fuel shills.

There’s also other problems, like the United States electrical grid. We need more transmission lines — which is a major undertaking — to get the solar energy from the sunbelt and the wind energy from the midwestern states to other areas. Nuclear energy can fill the potential gaps, since it’s dispatchable and creates no carbon emissions (although there’s a host of issues there too, including managing waste and the time it takes to build them, although there’s smaller ones that can be built that are in the works).

With EVs there’s a question about the lithium and cobalt, and whether there’s enough to meet demand — although there’s potential for sodium-ion batteries which seems promising. EVs are already great, but will get even better; more charging stations are being built, and they’re becoming cheaper— even with idiots like Trump and his climate denier cronies in office. It’s too late to stop that train— China is a good example. We have to put 100% tariffs on their EVs because they’re cheap and awesome (see BYD).

The question of heavy industry — like steel and cement — is one of the hardest ones. Alternative technologies exist but not to scale, and research is still in its infancy.

We should, at the very least, do our very best in order to ensure that this mindfuck of a problem does not degenerate into an online orgy of stupidity. — Arcane Sandwich

The problem of climate change and plastics can definitely be tough ones to fully appreciate. It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda: they want to deny what the overwhelming evidence is telling us.

It can also be scary — which is partly why people fall for propaganda — Mikie

Then, will all due respect Mikie (and everyone else), people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late.

people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late. — Arcane Sandwich

Indeed.

people need to grow the fuck up before it's too late.
— Arcane Sandwich

Indeed. — Mikie

What do you mean by that Mikie?

That people should stop calling other people names?

And start commenting on what is said rather than who said it?

, why don't you just answer fοo?

Anyway, I took their references and their concluding summary seriously enough to think that we better prepare. Unless otherwise meeting an early end, that applies to everyone.

Limiting anthropogenic warming remains the most sound strategy for avoiding the most severe heat events

Haven't sifted through the references and examples in detail though, maybe if time permits. Some mentioned samples are down to Karachi, Paris, Vancouver, Mecca, Lagos, Chicago, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Al Hudaydah, New York, Ahmedabad, other perspectives are broader. Preparing for wider temperature swings is justified.

South Asia and West Africa seem at most risk at the moment

On another note, plastic bags (old style) have been out for a while around here. In stores, you bring your own reusable bags or buy them there. Plastic straws have been out for a while as well. Anthropogenic pollution at large has become ridiculous.

And start commenting on what is said rather than who said it? — Agree-to-Disagree

…

Mikie

Dana Nuccitelli

:rofl: . :rofl: . :rofl: — Agree-to-Disagree

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way. — Arcane Sandwich

One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. Plastic pollution is a serious environmental problem, but it is not a major contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is warming because of the insulating effect of changes in the atmosphere, mainly the increase of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and the increase of methane from various sources, farmed cattle emissions, natural gas leakage, permafrost melting, etc. Plastics actually function to lock up carbon long term and so function in a minor way as a carbon sink. But do not take that as a vote in their favour.

So the issue for this thread at least, is the burning of fossil fuels rather than their transformation into plastics, unless those plastics are incinerated. Petrol, diesel, aviation fuel, coal, natural gas, are all hydrocarbons whose combustion add to the insulation that warms the earth.

Pollution has some importance too, because it degrades the ability of the living environment to absorb carbon dioxide, and rebalance the atmosphere. But the major impact comes from oil and coal burning, and that is what needs to stop.

Of course things get much more complicated as one goes into the details, and we can talk about positive feedback and tipping points and sun-cycles and Milankovitch cycles, and bees, and krill, and plastics, and so on and on. But please understand, our total addiction to fossil fuels is the big problem and if we don't sort it, the world will heat up until we either do sort it or the heat sorts us.

I understand where you're coming from, yet I fail to see how I could improve such a situation in any meaningful way.
— Arcane Sandwich

One way you could improve the situation is by developing a better understanding of the issues. — unenlightened

I was referring to the situation involving @Agree-to-Disagree and @Mikie specifically, as in, whatever beef they have with each other, if any. I'm not here to squash the beef between them. So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question.

So how could my understanding of the issues change that in any way? Honest question. — Arcane Sandwich

It would allow you to understand their conflict better. I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again.

It would allow you to understand their conflict better. — unenlightened

I don't want to understand it, their conflict doesn't concern me.

I wouldn't suggest that you read the whole damn thread, but even a skim of the last 5 pages would give you an idea of the frustration of trying to keep what is really an informative thread on the latest research and predictions whilst having to respond to contrarian nonsense time and time again. — unenlightened

Well, look at the bright side, this Thread hasn't degenerated into a debate about the shape of the Earth, and we can take some pride in that fact.

Well, look at the bright side, this Thread hasn't degenerated into a debate about the shape of the Earth — Arcane Sandwich

Big Geophysics, that’s a little fishy. The level of consensus that the earth is spherical is suspect. It’s about the funding. I look at the data myself, and make up my own mind. I’ve concluded that all the scientists are wrong: the earth is flat. But I’m not a flat earther. — Mikie

You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin:

You obviously haven't read much of this thread. :grin: — Agree-to-Disagree

Ok, then look at this other bright side: at least this Thread hasn't degenerated into Semantics. We're still able to draw a map-territory distinction, here.

And that's something to be proud of.

On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them...

On the less bright side, discussing the thread and its bright and dull sides is entirely off topic, as is most of the discussion that goes on in the thread. but since we can't beat them... — unenlightened

The less bright side?

Kayaker swallowed by humpback whale in Chile

See video of it happening here:
https://news.sky.com/story/kayaker-survives-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile-13308753

It is impossible to say whether this particular event was caused by climate change.

But climate scientists doing attribution studies have shown that climate change has made "kayakers being swallowed by humpback whales" a lot more likely than it was in the past. . :scream:

Aren’t you mad that the car that’s served you perfectly well over 8 years is really a piece of junk? — Mikie

If you bought your EV over 8 years ago then it must have been around 2016. There were not many EV models available at that time. You probably have a Nissan Leaf. Did you buy the Leaf S (which has a range of 149 miles), or the pricier SV Plus (which has a range of 212 miles)?

Because you live in your mother's basement you probably don't need any more range. 4 trips to the letterbox and back on a single charge is plenty.

How many times have you had to replace the battery pack?

How many EV fires have you had?

Can you charge your EV at home, or do you use public chargers?

Does your mother let you charge your EV near the house?

How much did you pay for your EV?

How much has your EV depreciated?

What are the insurance costs for your EV?

Do you feel smug and self-righteous because you drive an EV?

Are you aware of the environmental impacts that EVs have?

- you might be able to pride yourself on producing zero tailpipe emissions from your EV but unless you're charging from solar panels on your roof all you are doing is pushing those emissions back up the wire to the coal or gas fired power station

- not only that but to obtain all the minerals and elements for a single EV battery requires over 250 tons of Earth to be mined moved refined and assembled, all of which is powered by diesel vehicles and
machinery

- you'll be driving your EV for many many years before it even breaks even (if it ever does break even)

- but despite all of those things at least you can bask in the warm glow of knowing that the cobalt in your EVs battery has probably been mined by child slave labor in sub-Saharan Africa

Do you really think that this is going to save humans and the planet Mikie?

January wasn't expected to break global temperature records. But it did

Both 2023 and 2024 shattered previous temperature records, hovering near or above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above the Earth's temperature in the late 1800s, a time before humans began burning vast amounts of fossil fuels that have inexorably heated up the planet.

But the forecast was projected to ease slightly, primarily because a strong El Niño — a part of a natural climate cycle that had contributed to the intense heat — had faded by late last year. During El Niños, the planet is often warmer than usual. But during the other half of the cycle, called La Niña, it usually cools down. Earth flipped into the La Niña phase last year.

But the expected reprieve hasn't shown up. Instead, January broke yet more records: NOAA reported the month was the hottest January in its 176-year-long record. Copernicus, the European meteorological service that tracks global climate change, reported that January was 1.75 C (3.15 Fahrenheit) above historic levels.

Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years). There’s also a lag effect.

An interesting YouTube video called "UnbeliEVable! Why with Governments Like This in Charge, The EV is DOOMED" by "JayEmm on Cars"

JayEmm is from the UK (and is not related to MGUY :grin: )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyhBUT_KXm8

It is a 32 minute video so I will just quote an interesting part. I may post other parts later.

========== begin quote ==========
I've discussed before, many times, the issues that you have if you don't have a driveway and the general expense of running an EV. In the last year or two prices for electric car charging have gone through the roof, but you already know that, this is not news to anybody.

But you see in the last couple of months there's a few friends of mine, one in particular - lovely chap called Chris, that have been on the hunt for an EV of their own and so I have been given a little bit more of an insight into this world that I know many of you already inhabit and I would appreciate greatly your feedback on.

The general gist in case you're wondering is that if you can charge at home on a driveway with good decent cheap night rate electricity your cost per mile to run a car could be as low as 2 p and there is no combustion engine vehicle out there that can or probably ever will come close to that.

The issue is that if you can't charge at home on a driveway then you are at the mercy of public charging points, and if you're in an inefficient EV your cost suddenly skyrockets to a point where you'd actually save money by driving an old V12 Mercedes. Bit nuts right. That's clearly not sustainable for an awful lot of people, but prices will go up, they will come down, and hopefully they will stabilize. But this is an area where I'd like a little bit more government intervention.

If it is true what [charging] companies are saying, that they simply cannot be a viable business without having to charge 80 P per kilowatt hour, then we've got a real problem because EVs were sold to a lot of people in the first wave under the guise of yes we know it's more expensive to buy but your total running costs are dramatically lower. Now they are more expensive to buy and more expensive to run.
========== end quote ==========

Again—this is just at 429 ppm (the highest in 2 million years). — Mikie

Look at the history of global living conditions.

Compare 1820 (with a CO2 level of about 284 ppm) and 2020 (with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm). An increase of about 130 ppm of CO2 in 200 years.

Would you rather live in 1820 or 2020 ?

The CO2 level and global living conditions have increased together.

The world has become better in many ways. e.g. the following areas: (not a complete list)
- poverty
- literacy
- health
- freedom
- education
- quality of life
- technology

The world population was around 1 billion in the year 1800 and increased more than eight-fold since then. The increase of the world population should evoke more than just doom and gloom. First of all, this increase shows a tremendous achievement. It shows that humans stopped dying at the rate at which our ancestors died for many millennia before.

The Industrial Revolution unlocked a whole new energy resource: fossil fuels. Fossil energy has been a fundamental driver of the technological, social, economic, and development progress that has followed. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have, and continue to, play a dominant role in global energy systems. There are many problems that will occur if we try to shift away from fossil fuels too quickly. The change to renewable energy will continue, but it also has many risks associated with it.

Just realized that CO2 levels and Olivia Rodrigo have both increased together — in ppm and age, respectively.

Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions.

Just realized that CO2 levels and Olivia Rodrigo have both increased together — in ppm and age, respectively.

Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions. — Mikie

Do you also believe in homeopathy Mikie? . :rofl:

Compare 1820 (with a CO2 level of about 284 ppm) and 2020 (with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm). An increase of about 130 ppm of CO2 in 200 years.

Would you rather live in 1820 or 2020 ? — Agree-to-Disagree

I would much rather live in 2020 with a CO2 level of about 414 ppm.

But I wish that Mikie lived in 1820. He would be happier riding a horse because horses don't normally burst into flames. . :rofl:

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation? — Mikie

Just realized that CO2 levels and Olivia Rodrigo have both increased together — in ppm and age, respectively.

Thus, let’s try to slow reduction of emissions. — Mikie

That last comment from you is very relevant to that first comment from you.

Do you understand what it means to "shoot yourself in the foot"? . :rofl: