This is an interesting article but it misses a key point: Why did we pick the baselines we did?
The first baseline to consider is CO2. But CO2 is also a fertilizer for plants and literally every plant we exists because of CO2. The more CO2, the better plants grow. They actually pump CO2 into greenhouses to make everything grow faster. Also interesting to note on CO2 is that only 12% of the increase over the last 150 years can be carbon traced to Fossil Fuels. Even if we stopped ALL emissions, CO2 will increase... Why?
The second baseline is Temperature. Yet we know even less about temperature than we do CO2 and modeling temps is wicked hard. We have yet to figure out how much impact the Sun is having let alone CO2 impacts. Yet we know it's been much much warmer in the past and we also know that temperature changes have been much more dramatic in the past. So why this baseline?
I ask these two questions in the essay linked below not to challenge the science of whether the climate is changing, but to understand where we are measuring those changes from, and why. And don't worry, the essay proposes that even thinking about these questions can result in better ideas for what we need to do about it.
Also interesting to note on CO2 is that only 12% of the increase over the last 150 years can be carbon traced to Fossil Fuels.- Even small percentage changes can destroy ecosystems (look into how carbonization is destroy ocean reefs). 12% is a big deal (not to mention there are other pollutants like Methane and SO2 being released in both direct and downstream effects).
It's not about temperature fluctuations but rapid and consistent increases/decreases that are disruptive. For example, the black death caused global temperatures to fall rapidly and lead to global cooling. But it didn't lead to large scale death because this wasn't a systematic change (human populations didn't stay low forever).
There is some disagreement with measures/emission calculations (especially when it comes to fields like Agriculture), but there is much more agreement /conclusiveness than there is ambiguity
I agree with those points. Yet we have a lot of historical precedents that demonstrate dramatic and systemic change just 12k years ago when ocean levels were 450 feet lower, salinity was higher, ice was a mile thick on N America and that all changed in a flash.
None of those corals from 12k years ago exist today. Further the ocean reef bleaching discussion is way overblown.
Fundamentally we know very little about the larger climate system and it's resiliency. We do know that it's been much hotter with CO2 as high as 5,000ppm during the Jurassic period which also had the greatest biomass and biodiversity of our planets existence.
So again, why those quite arbitrary baselines? What's best for the climate and ecosystem writ large? Why are plants optimized for 1200ppm CO2? And that 12%, when removed, shows that of that 100ppm increase over 150 years 88ppm is natural (I've never seen anything to suggest 12% is the breaking point.)
I'm not defending fossil fuels. I'm trying to bring actual scientific inquiry back to the table.
I can’t stand lobbying. When I worked at MS I would receive emails to participate in their lobbying efforts. It as always spun in a positive way too as if I was helping save the world.
But unfortunately lobbying is all or nothing. Companies can’t stop lobbying unless all companies stop lobbying or they lose big time. Another aspect of the US political system that screws the people.
Example of MS asking employees to participate? I just remember getting emails about donating to MSPAC I think it was. I can’t remember any other specifics. Sorry, that’s probably not super helpful.
If you use apps like Maritime or FlightRadar, it is scary the sheer numbers of colossal container ships and oil tankers that are burning billions of gallons of oil to transport raw materials into and finished goods out of various eastern nations.
If we, in the West, stopped consuming large amounts of “tat”, we would dramatically reduce the amount of emissions.
Another dramatic improvement, but fraught with challenges is reforestation. Even stopping requiring hard woods for disposable furniture would make a big difference.
Like you say, we’re being hoodwinked into thinking we need to buy more (eg electric cars, heat pumps, etc when the mining of lithium alone is causing massive ecological damage near the source of the Amazon to just highlight one of the current scandalous damage that consumerism is causing. Use technology to reduce the need to commute!
Many solutions are simple, but the elite won’t possibly promote it as it will mean less profits from their capital investments.
Considering the portfolios are digitized ... it’s with a sense of amazement that some set of humans still think a computer knows whether the sky is burning - or would have a positive sentiment for that matter.
This is an interesting article but it misses a key point: Why did we pick the baselines we did?
The first baseline to consider is CO2. But CO2 is also a fertilizer for plants and literally every plant we exists because of CO2. The more CO2, the better plants grow. They actually pump CO2 into greenhouses to make everything grow faster. Also interesting to note on CO2 is that only 12% of the increase over the last 150 years can be carbon traced to Fossil Fuels. Even if we stopped ALL emissions, CO2 will increase... Why?
The second baseline is Temperature. Yet we know even less about temperature than we do CO2 and modeling temps is wicked hard. We have yet to figure out how much impact the Sun is having let alone CO2 impacts. Yet we know it's been much much warmer in the past and we also know that temperature changes have been much more dramatic in the past. So why this baseline?
I ask these two questions in the essay linked below not to challenge the science of whether the climate is changing, but to understand where we are measuring those changes from, and why. And don't worry, the essay proposes that even thinking about these questions can result in better ideas for what we need to do about it.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/the-climate-is-changing
A few comments there.
Also interesting to note on CO2 is that only 12% of the increase over the last 150 years can be carbon traced to Fossil Fuels.- Even small percentage changes can destroy ecosystems (look into how carbonization is destroy ocean reefs). 12% is a big deal (not to mention there are other pollutants like Methane and SO2 being released in both direct and downstream effects).
You might like the following piece talking about human induced warming more- https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
It's not about temperature fluctuations but rapid and consistent increases/decreases that are disruptive. For example, the black death caused global temperatures to fall rapidly and lead to global cooling. But it didn't lead to large scale death because this wasn't a systematic change (human populations didn't stay low forever).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm
There is some disagreement with measures/emission calculations (especially when it comes to fields like Agriculture), but there is much more agreement /conclusiveness than there is ambiguity
I agree with those points. Yet we have a lot of historical precedents that demonstrate dramatic and systemic change just 12k years ago when ocean levels were 450 feet lower, salinity was higher, ice was a mile thick on N America and that all changed in a flash.
None of those corals from 12k years ago exist today. Further the ocean reef bleaching discussion is way overblown.
https://platogbr.com/bleaching-exaggerations/
Fundamentally we know very little about the larger climate system and it's resiliency. We do know that it's been much hotter with CO2 as high as 5,000ppm during the Jurassic period which also had the greatest biomass and biodiversity of our planets existence.
So again, why those quite arbitrary baselines? What's best for the climate and ecosystem writ large? Why are plants optimized for 1200ppm CO2? And that 12%, when removed, shows that of that 100ppm increase over 150 years 88ppm is natural (I've never seen anything to suggest 12% is the breaking point.)
I'm not defending fossil fuels. I'm trying to bring actual scientific inquiry back to the table.
Fair enough
An excellent read. Good work Devansh!
I can’t stand lobbying. When I worked at MS I would receive emails to participate in their lobbying efforts. It as always spun in a positive way too as if I was helping save the world.
But unfortunately lobbying is all or nothing. Companies can’t stop lobbying unless all companies stop lobbying or they lose big time. Another aspect of the US political system that screws the people.
Can you share some examples. I'm going to do a dedicated piece on Tech Lobbying soon
Example of MS asking employees to participate? I just remember getting emails about donating to MSPAC I think it was. I can’t remember any other specifics. Sorry, that’s probably not super helpful.
Not at all. This gives me direction to hit at next. I can start digging around now. You've been very helpful. Thank you.
If you use apps like Maritime or FlightRadar, it is scary the sheer numbers of colossal container ships and oil tankers that are burning billions of gallons of oil to transport raw materials into and finished goods out of various eastern nations.
If we, in the West, stopped consuming large amounts of “tat”, we would dramatically reduce the amount of emissions.
Another dramatic improvement, but fraught with challenges is reforestation. Even stopping requiring hard woods for disposable furniture would make a big difference.
Like you say, we’re being hoodwinked into thinking we need to buy more (eg electric cars, heat pumps, etc when the mining of lithium alone is causing massive ecological damage near the source of the Amazon to just highlight one of the current scandalous damage that consumerism is causing. Use technology to reduce the need to commute!
Many solutions are simple, but the elite won’t possibly promote it as it will mean less profits from their capital investments.
You are very right. All of the propaganda is created to make us consume more, which is not profitable for the business owners
Funny how the first chart only has data to 2014.
Could it be the most current data is rather politically inconvenient?
Considering the portfolios are digitized ... it’s with a sense of amazement that some set of humans still think a computer knows whether the sky is burning - or would have a positive sentiment for that matter.
A thought-provoking piece on the hidden dangers of AI and climate change.