Paradise Lost - Irony In Climate Change.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

This was a comment at ATS, and a previous thread, but I feel it should be done again in a non redundant setting.

A topical story, with my take on climate change. That kind of says "everyone is right and everyone is wrong" simultaneously.

Thread begin:

Climate change is coming, and your small island is sinking.



They can't keep the water back anymore, and this is the first of MANY Panamanian islands that are to be voluntarily evacuated.

The sea level rise is hard to dispute.

My dispute is the anthropogenic way we caused it to happen. We caused the melt off more recently.

I think, in a twisted Irony, our recognition of our hands in climate change brought on the actions which actually accelerated it.

I know the sulfur from coal and vehicle smog killed trees, but had they not selectively filtered the emissions they might not have thrown wacky concentrations of greenhouse vs. aerosols into the atmosphere for over 50 years running now.

So basically to save trees and people's lungs from adjacent burning coal, they attacked almost ALL aerosols, and a large portion of greenhouse gasses.

Then, you can line up a seemingly exponential acceleration starting pricely with the imposition of EPA exhaust regulations. The aggressive reduction in aerosols is coorlative to the rise in temperature. It lines up so well you can single out the mandating of CATALYTIC CONVERTORS as the most likely 'accelerant." In recent times that's become more pronounced. Almost ZERO aerosols are now released, meaning no matter how little greenhouse emissions they reduce it to, they are still adding to the already askew atmospheric concentrations. No matter how you attack it through regulation you just add to the problem that exists until you address the other loss of albedo.

It's getting to the point where purposely releasing aerosols in the upper atmosphere will be the ONLY way to stop this greenhouse imbalance. If it's about albedo, there's easier ways to do that. Like a single Mt. Tambora. Perhaps engineered volcanic cooling is an answer to climate change. Because all our effort combined amount to an engineered greenhouse effect as things stand now.

No one likes this explanation though, pro and con alike.

What are your opinions on the cause of anthropogenic Climate change? Does anthropogenic climate change exist? Could my insane idea to "play Mt. Tambora" cause a more devastating cold snap? Is it releasing tigers to get rid of rodents?

[Maxmars]

I find it impossible to believe that humans haven't engaged in thoughtless exploitation of the environment.  I also find it impossible to believe that any one species can 'destroy' the balance that life has established over eons.

Yes, human profit seeking has exacerbated the abuse wantonly.  In most aspects of the argument, I find it difficult to excuse the efforts of industrial-scale enterprises.  The shifting of the food cycle, the simpleton techniques of assuming that petrochemical fertilizers are somehow 'adequate' for changing agricultural outputs to something "better."  The notion that if a fume or gas pollutant isn't immediately visible, it may as well not exist for us to worry about.  That whatever is accessible in the way of natural resource it should be all but sucked dry for sale "right now."  None of these things is excusable and yes, are contributory to the demolition of a balance long in the making.

But to say that we 'caused it' has a direct implication.  That we can fix it.  We can't.  We broke the cycle. 

And we can't simply pretend that by recycling cans, sweating more in the summer, and shivering more in the winter is going to "fix" it, not matter how much "virtue signaling" is offered up by the people who want your money to pretend they are 'fixing it for you.'  Part of the problem here is that people are posturing to 'sell' a fix.  And it always boils down to them being comfortable and you not.  Every virtue signal media production is a 'marketing' piece for someone's "initiative"... (which you should please support' and 'talk up' among friends because 'virtue signaling' is contagious.)

The real problem that no one seems to focus on sufficiently is industry.  Most of the media I see talks about the 'sacrifices' we must all make, the things "we" must change... while industry gets a pass to continue consuming more and wasting more than all of us combined... and they do all that for immense profit... which they share with the people who appoint regulators... and produce media.

Also, there is another very important thing we always fail to comprehend as media consumers.  These scientists, statisticians, ecologists, climatologists, etc., not only don't know everything, they also evidently, maintain that what they don't know doesn't matter.  The media speaks of their sources and contributors as if they were godlings of knowledge... they are not.  Look at any climatologist and ask them how the temperature rise we are measuring on this planet compares to the rest5 of the planets in the solar system... most will stare at you blankly.  It doesn't matter to them... only that we have to "do" something about man's contribution.

I predicted quite a while back that we should expect to hear justification for purposeful pollutant aerosol dispersal, and lo and behold, here it is cemented.  People, meaning commerce, will try their best to convince us that there is some safe chemical they can dump into the atmosphere... and our representatives will put us into debt for the "billions" need to do it.  But even that represents us, once again, engaging in the same behavior that got us here.  It's a sad fantasy, but someone must say it.

I fear the anthropomorphic rationale for global climate change.  We are not the globe, just part of it.  Do we impel the damage forward by our machinations? Yes. Were we greedily short-sighted by exploiting the natural world for gain? Yes.  In what way is 'shaming' the population actually helping? None, none at all. Shame the industrialists and economists, and policy makers and regulators... it's their bailiwick to bear the shame... don't let the technocracy use it's media friends to shift the blame to us.

(Got a bit carried away there... We will survive this. Doom is good for entertainment... but I would rather 'live' life, not unduly 'fret' over what I have no responsibility for.)

[Blaine91555]

Climate Change is happening and has been since the Earth formed and it will continue until the Earth ends. It would be happening if man did not exists or if no "intelligent life" ever existed.

I have little doubt that man has some impact, but I highly doubt it's at the level the Chicken Little's present it to be. It seems to be almost printed in our genes that we humans just have to have an impending bit of doom to use like a weapon against anyone we disagree with. Just like children on a playground we would rather hurl insults and accusations at each other rather than work together. Sigh

I think a real question here would be why would anyone build that on an island like that? I'd ask the same question about places like New Orleans. We humans are incredibly stupid at times. Those who built there took the risk, they reap the rewards for it.

[putnam6]

This was a comment at ATS, and a previous thread, but I feel it should be done again in a non redundant setting.

A topical story, with my take on climate change. That kind of says "everyone is right and everyone is wrong" simultaneously.

Thread begin:

Climate change is coming, and your small island is sinking.

[Video: https://youtu.be/JelRwUpdABE?si=ZCVrv99LOwpNOr40]

They can't keep the water back anymore, and this is the first of MANY Panamanian islands that are to be voluntarily evacuated.

The sea level rise is hard to dispute.

My dispute is the anthropogenic way we caused it to happen. We caused the melt off more recently.

I think, in a twisted Irony, our recognition of our hands in climate change brought on the actions which actually accelerated it.

I know the sulfur from coal and vehicle smog killed trees, but had they not selectively filtered the emissions they might not have thrown wacky concentrations of greenhouse vs. aerosols into the atmosphere for over 50 years running now.

So basically to save trees and people's lungs from adjacent burning coal, they attacked almost ALL aerosols, and a large portion of greenhouse gasses.

Then, you can line up a seemingly exponential acceleration starting pricely with the imposition of EPA exhaust regulations. The aggressive reduction in aerosols is coorlative to the rise in temperature. It lines up so well you can single out the mandating of CATALYTIC CONVERTORS as the most likely 'accelerant." In recent times that's become more pronounced. Almost ZERO aerosols are now released, meaning no matter how little greenhouse emissions they reduce it to, they are still adding to the already askew atmospheric concentrations. No matter how you attack it through regulation you just add to the problem that exists until you address the other loss of albedo.

It's getting to the point where purposely releasing aerosols in the upper atmosphere will be the ONLY way to stop this greenhouse imbalance. If it's about albedo, there's easier ways to do that. Like a single Mt. Tambora. Perhaps engineered volcanic cooling is an answer to climate change. Because all our effort combined amount to an engineered greenhouse effect as things stand now.

No one likes this explanation though, pro and con alike.

What are your opinions on the cause of anthropogenic Climate change? Does anthropogenic climate change exist? Could my insane idea to "play Mt. Tambora" cause a more devastating cold snap? Is it releasing tigers to get rid of rodents?

 I grew up with the fear that the ozone hole over Antarctica would continue to grow and eventually, we would all die from skin cancer or we would have to live underground.

With it being hyped so much along with conventional academic wisdom it would never recover, we just assumed by now we all would be lathered up in maximum sunblock, outdoor activities would be curtailed, and perhaps we would become creatures of the night.

We worried and learned about a lot of stuff in the 80s like AIDS, Nuclear War, Crime, Poverty, and Pollution. Climatology is an inexact science, add in the 80s contemporaneous hyperbolic dystopian descriptions of the future of humanity. No wonder my generation decided to drink, smoke, snort, ingest any substance, numb our brains, and party like it's 1999 to prepare for our inevitable fast-approaching doom. 

Except
The experts were off a bit

 

• In the 1980s, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was dramatic, with about 60% of the ozone depleted at its peak in September-October each year compared to pre-1980 levels.
  
• The Montreal Protocol, an international agreement signed in 1987, regulated the phase-out of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances globally.
  
• With the decline of CFCs in the atmosphere due to the Montreal Protocol, the ozone hole has slowly been recovering over the past few decades, though at a slower rate than scientists initially predicted.
  
• As of the early 2020s, the ozone hole over Antarctica is still occurring annually but is smaller and projected to continue recovering over the next few decades if emissions of ozone-depleting substances are eliminated completely.
  
• Full recovery of the ozone layer over the Antarctic is expected between 2060-2080 based on current projections, restoring protective UV radiation shielding above pre-1980 levels.
  

Furthermore, COVID lockdowns highlighted that our ecosystem might have serious regenerative capabilities, even dirty filthy Wuhan China did not see immediate returns.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilit...-the-norm/

The difference between the model simulated values and the measured ground observations represents the change in emissions due to the pandemic response. The researchers received data from 46 countries—a total of 5,756 observation sites on the ground—relaying hourly atmospheric composition measurements in near-real time. On a city-level, 50 of the 61 analyzed cities show nitrogen dioxide reductions between 20-50%.
“In some ways I was surprised by how much it dropped,” said Keller. “Many countries have already done a very good job in lowering their nitrogen dioxide concentrations over the last decades due to clean air regulations, but what our results clearly show is that there is still asignificant human behavior-driven contribution.”

 
Wuhan, China was the first municipality reporting an outbreak of COVID-19. It was also the first to show reduced nitrogen dioxide emissions—60% lower than simulated values expected. A 60% decrease in Milan and a 45% decrease in New York followed shortly, as their local restrictions went into effect.
“You could, at times, even see the decrease in nitrogen dioxide before the official policies went into place,” said co-author Emma Knowland with USRA at Goddard’s GMAO. “People were probably reducing their transit because the talk of the COVID-19 threat was already happening before we were actually told to shut down.” Once restrictions were eased, the decreases in nitrogen dioxide lessened, but remained below expected “business as usual” values.

Nitrogen dioxide levels often dip during Lunar New Year celebrations in China and much of Asia, and then rebound. But no rebound was evident this year over Wuhan, China where the virus was first reported, and nitrogen dioxide levels remained much lower than in 2019.
Credits: NASA’s Earth Observatory

This is not to say climate change is not a serious problem, it certainly is but this highlights our current understanding and the ratios involved might be lower than when we first extrapolated the data. I recall the People's Almanac of Predictions published in 1980. I read this book voraciously as a 15-year-old sci-fi aficionado. Predictions from experts on all topics including global warming and climate change IIRC were mostly way off base. We have to realize it may be beyond our current understanding, much like we didn't know the microscopic nature of germs till post 1860s and thought medical science knew all that was to know by the time the Spanish Flu hit. We did not and it was not even close. It all might be beyond our comprehension and model-making, add in the money-making aspect and the political angle makes me somewhat skeptical AF.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/06/the-book-of-pre

  https://archive.org/details/peoplesalman...8/mode/2up

 The book is on Archive.org and is still an interesting read today...

[putnam6]

Id like to add this aspect to the conversation..

These machines scrub greenhouse gases from the air – an inventor of direct air capture technology shows how it works

https://theconversation.com/these-machin...rks-172306

 
Two centuries of burning fossil fuels has put more carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere than nature can remove. As that CO2 builds up, it traps excess heat near Earth’s surface, causing global warming. There is so much CO2 in the atmosphere now that most scenarios show ending emissions alone won’t be enough to stabilize the climate – humanity will also have to remove CO2 from the air.
The U.S. Department of Energy has a new goal to scale up direct air capture, a technology that uses chemical reactions to capture CO2 from air. While federal funding for carbon capture often draws criticism because some people see it as an excuse for fossil fuel use to continue, carbon removal in some form will likely still be necessary, IPCC reports show. Technology to remove carbon mechanically is in development and operating at a very small scale, in part because current methods are prohibitively expensive and energy intensive. But new techniques are being tested this year that could help lower the energy demand and cost.