Wild Fires

[Edward Weber]

I recall reading 25? some years ago to not worry about co2 emissions because the oceans were big enough to absorb it.

A quick search didn't find that info, but search results came across plans to seed the ocean with iron so that phytoplankton will bloom and absorb co2. Geoengineering the ocean just seems so @#$%^ wrong to me.

Scientists Will Engineer the Ocean to Absorb More Carbon Dioxide | Scientific American

I can't possible see what harm could come from messing with the chemical makeup of the ocean, it's just salty water

Why is it, whenever humans realize they need to change something to fix a problem, it's never their own behavior?

[mike stenson]

I can't possible see what harm could come from messing with the chemical makeup of the ocean, it's just salty water

Why is it, whenever humans realize they need to change something to fix a problem, it's never their own behavior?

It's more convenient to make future generations deal with it instead.

[andrew whicker]

The ocean DID absorb a lot of the CO2 (it's more acidic.. we can measure it). It's why we haven't seen as much impact as we would have otherwise. We are also going thru a mild glacial period from an astronomy perspective which has helped us as well.

No anthropogenic (human caused) climate change denier can deny down to the chemistry of the ocean or deny how molecules work or deny how spectrometry works. The only thing they can deny is gray area stuff like "bias" which in no way explains why CO2 (or any 'greenhouse' gas) acts the way it does. It's not like a biased scientist tests CO2 and finds out that it absorbs energy vs a science denier does the same experiment and comes up with different results.

It's kind of like, well, I mean unless molecules behave differently than they are known and measured to behave then I guess it's real. So I guess you'd have to overturn results of simple tests that were done way back during the American civil war era and re-certified who knows how many times. If you agree we know why humid locations don't cool down at night and dry locations do, then you have to believe in anthropogenic climate change.


I guess the other concept is that there is some sort of HUGE event happening beneath our very feet and we are totally unaware. Like maybe there are volcanoes going off 24/7 that we don't know about. Or maybe rock weathering is happening somewhere on earth that no one knows about on absolutely MASSIVE scale that breaks with all scientific understanding.

It's odd too that deniers bring up Earth's past as an argument because the very fact of knowing the Earth's past suggest we believe scientists are smart enough to look at rocks and other signs and figure out previous forms of Earth. Like, there's this understanding of many many things that us normal folks never worked on. We aren't geologists or paleontologists, but we don't argue about plate tectonics or the ages of dinosaurs or mass extinctions of 5 different Earths prior to us. We take it for granted that science has found a way to date dinosaur bones, but we don't believe that same chemistry knowledge applies to anything else? We agree that engine technology on race cars is amazing. We know everything there seemingly is to know about how they work. We certainly know the basic chemical formula of fuel + air -> exhaust and energy equation. But somehow all that knowledge stops after exhaust leaves the tail pipe? We've been burning wood, coal, oil, and gas for how many years? The argument is that we don't understand the chemical process?

We find holes in sea creatures shells that use CaCO3 (calcium carbonate) and we know why there are holes. Because the ocean is more acidic. Why is the ocean more acidic? Because it is absorbing massive amounts of CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from? This logic finding mission is enough for us non-scientists to figure out the problem.

We can use spectrometry and find which CO2 molecules come from a volcano vs which ones come from burning fossil fuels. I guess a denier could attempt to prove that wrong?

In other words, to ACTUALLY deny human caused climate change HAS to be to deny basic chemistry. And that's why all denials come from a political perspective or biased scientist perspective or criticizing a super super complicated computer model of the future (which has actually been quite accurate). Because there is no meat and potatoes to denialism. It can't go deeper because 2+2 = 4 and will always equal four. It's not a thing to be "believed", it's a thing just... existing. Just being. Just a reaction with an output based on the inputs. If this then that. Denying "it" doesn't matter to "it". CO2 won't stop behaving the way CO2 does and it won't stop being created because of belief this or belief that. I don't how else to say it. I wish I did.

[Michael Weber]

Here is a graph of the average earth temperature change in degrees C for the last 22,000 years. It’s entertaining with notes of what was happening in the world. It’s long but worth scrolling through. Posting my long ago saved picture didn’t work so here is a link to the page that has the graph. Temperatures do fluctuate but over much time until recently. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/stu...oogle_vignette

[Michael Weber]

That was an amazing post Andrew. Thanks

[Doug Garson]

The change is so subtle, I can see why some aren't convinced that burning fossil fuels is the cause.

[Bill George]

So climate change is here as what I said. Climate has been changing for 1,000s of years and proof is post above. So if its caused by humans, other than feel good what is This country suppose to do, besides Feed Good. Russia, China, India, N Korea, and etc etc are doing Zero actual about it. We are using more solar and wind today than 10 years ago, we also need Nukes like new design with gravity reactor water dumping instead of pumps. Bearing in mind anything done as a world will not take effect for50 years or so...

For those who are confused > https://www.visualcapitalist.com/stu...oogle_vignette

[Jim Becker]

Bill, climate change is a given, but the point is that science says it's accelerated at an unsustainable rate due to human activities. Just because making adjustments now may not have effect immediately doesn't mean we shouldn't do them. We very much are responsible for the world we live in today, and more importantly we (in the present) are responsible for helping to keep it sustainable for our future generations. And just because some other countries are not being responsible doesn't give us a bye. BTW, interestingly enough, China really is paying attention to this and are not doing "zero".

[Edward Weber]

Humans need to change their way of thinking and their behavior. Unfortunately, those are the last things that change historically. Often it takes something catastrophic to wake people up. A slow change over many years is easily dismissed. If they can't see it with there own eyes in that moment (which I think you can these days) then they think they're getting duped somehow.

Mother nature is not against us but she is intolerant of mistakes and we've made a lot of mistakes over the years. The earth is just trying to deal with the situation we helped put in in and we're finding out, it's not pleasant.

My fear is that it will take something like, Miami sinking into the ocean/gulf or a massive tornado that erases a major city or something along those lines before people do something more than talk.

[Doug Garson]

What makes you think China is doing nothing to fight climate change? And even if true why is that a valid reason for the US to do less? China's per capita GHG emissions are about 60% of US per capita GHG emissions so maybe it is the US that is not doing enough? China also produces about 3 times more renewable electricity than the US. so which country is not doing enough? The reality is China will eat the US's lunch if the US took your attitude to fighting climate change. The renewable energy sector is one of the fastest growing industries.

Why would you be concerned about N Korea's efforts to fight climate change? Due to its geopolitical and economic isolation, North Korea has a very small carbon footprint and has even reduced its carbon emissions by 70% since 1990, though this is largely due to its economic decline over the last three decades.

[Edward Weber]

What makes you think China is doing nothing to fight climate change? And even if true why is that a valid reason for the US to do less? China's per capita GHG emissions are about 60% of US per capita GHG emissions so maybe it is the US that is not doing enough? China also produces about 3 times more renewable electricity than the US. so which country is not doing enough? The reality is China will eat the US's lunch if the US took your attitude to fighting climate change. The renewable energy sector is one of the fastest growing industries.

Why would you be concerned about N Korea's efforts to fight climate change? Due to its geopolitical and economic isolation, North Korea has a very small carbon footprint and has even reduced its carbon emissions by 70% since 1990, though this is largely due to its economic decline over the last three decades.

Tou guys are veering into the political, tread carefully.

[Bill George]

A couple of interesting finds... seems Canadas Forest fires are a big issue and they are not doing much to stop the smoke and haze over this part of the US > https://ctif.org/news/how-much-do-fo...density-it-can

And China is the most CO2 emitter in the world...https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57483492

[Doug Garson]

Yes wildfires, many of which are the result of climate change, contribute to climate change, kinda like a death spiral. What makes you think Canada is not doing much to fight them? We spent $770 million in 2023 fighting wildfires, considering our population is about 10% of the US and adjusting for the US vs Cnd dollar, that would equivalent to the US spending about 5 billion dollars. On average, the US spends a little under 3 billion per year fighting wildfires according to the US Forest Service.

Yes China is the largest CO2 contributor in the world but you don't seem to understand the concept of per capita, maybe you should Google it.

[Bill George]

You mean this Report showing Canada one of the worst CO2 emitters, per capita not taking into consideration of the vast smoke and CO2 from the forest fires.... https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/how-...ints-1.6202194 Thanks Duck Duck Go instead of Google and PS I do understand per Capita.