Okay I’m gonna try to answer this to the best of my abilities:
First of all: I don’t believe in climate change, I believe in maths and physics. There is enough conclusive data of 50+ years of geologists and climate scientists that supports the theory of climate change.
You may choose to ignore or reject that, but facts don’t care about your feelings.
Yes, in earths history our climate has changed consistently and in parts dramatically. Some fairly predictable changes are associated with the Milanković-Cycles (it’s a periodical shift in solar radiation intensity, due to earths wobble in the solar orbit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles).
However for the last 10k years, since last Ice Age, also beginning of Human settlement and civilization, scientists call it the Holocene our climate has been fairly stable.
The earths climate system is a complex one with many variables and climate research is trying to find patterns in long time scales within that dynamic process.
CO2 is neither good nor bad, it’s a molecule that contributes to the greenhouse effect. However the consequences of an ever warming planet might have drastic effects on human civilization and their infrastructure.
The planet will keep spinning long after we have made it impossible for us to inhabit it.
We both see a problem in burning fossil fuels, be it cancer or global warming, whatever it might be in the end, let’s focus on fixing the underlying problem right?
I’m no expert on volcanic eruptions but a big eruption of the Pinatubo in the days before my earthly existence had actually a cooling effect since the ash cloud and some sulfuric acids were mitigating solar radiation towards our planet. (This is really basic explanation, if in doubt, consult someone with greater knowledge of chemistry with higher atmospheric layers)
All ice masses are significantly shrinking. Looking at satellite imagery might be easier to spot the differences over time, than looking at graphs with potentially misleading axis labeling.
There are top notch peer reviewed studies on the geophysical workings of climate change with the IPCC.
Please focus your time in researching this topic on groups Working Groups I and II. Especially Group I delivers what you asked for.
Sun radiation and orbits - Milanković Cycles 🔄
Climate change is a geophysical fact. I don’t seek to mitigate it through taxation or control, but through changing our economic system from an inflationary one towards a deflationary one. (Hyperbitcoinization)
I think that most political claims on how to mitigate climate change are bullshit and I am opposed to more taxation and regulation. #Bitcoin will help fix this.
The picture was taken on a #Bitcoin conference where I made the case for #SaturdaysForSatoshi - A global freedom movement that seeks broad social change by peacefully protesting the injustice of our current monetary system in front of your local bank. I focus on the ecological implications that this change may bring, however this is FOSP (FreeOpenSourceProtest) and you may happily join with a #Bitcoin message that particularly resonates with you. (e.g. Privacy, State-Arbitrariness, Freedom)
I hope that this message reads as respectfully as I intended when writing it.
To improve discussion climate I would appreciate omitting terms like Clown or NPC.
Kind regards
A wise rabbit 🐰⚡️
Usually environmentalists are the first in line to recommend more taxation, less individual freedom and insane energy policies. I choose not to burden myself with the opinion of these NPCs.
#Bitcoin however does make renewables more viable and also incentivizes less waste from fossil fuel usage.
One question: why do you think climate models do not consider cloud coverage, even though they are obviously related to surface temperatures?
Tbh: I don’t have sufficient knowledge to answer this question properly.
I’m not sure if no models cover this, or only some that are shared a lot.
Even if, how would that change the thermodynamics of the greenhouse effect?
Every kid intuitively knows that it‘s warmer when there‘s direct sunlight when compared to clouds. Especially in modernday cities, with lots of concrete, direct sunlight creates a lot of heat. The past decades have seen a decrease in cloud coverage in Europe alongside warming. https://climate.copernicus.eu/esotc/2022/clouds-and-sunshine-duration
Couldn‘t it be that warming and clouds are related?
What do you think about this?
Sounds reasonable. Since I’m a grown kid, it seems very intuitive to come to this conclusion. The question is: Why is there less cloud coverage?
Lost track of this. We‘ve established that cloud coverage is declining and that clouds likely have a cooling effect on surface temperatures.
You asked why there is less cloud coverage. As a matter of fact, CERN (and other scientists) proved in theory and practice that cloud coverage is influenced by cosmic radiation (from the galaxy as well as the sun). https://home.cern/news/news/experiments/cosmic-rays-clouds
There are solar cycles with increases and decreases in solar activity. In the past 40 years or so, solar activity decreased which likely had an impact on cloud coverage (less clouds due to less solar radiation) and, hence, surface temperatures (higher due to less clouds) on earth.
Yet, this path of scientific research is not at all discussed by climate scienists.
What I am trying to say is: the earth‘s climate is way too complex and we know way too little about it to pinpoint it to one factor alone. And even worse so, real open-ended scientific research on the matter is discouraged. It‘s a taboo and could cost you your career as a scientist.
Josef, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and concerns regarding this truly complex issue. I’m not a climate scientist myself and agree 100% with the statement that earths climate is way to complex to pinpoint it to one variable. I would also agree with the incentive structure in current academia to be disincentivizing open ended research.
However I can’t ignore that my personal choices and actions have consequences. Consequences that may be more or less harmful to my fellow citizens of the earth and the environment around me. I personally try to optimize my lifestyle to avoid as much harm as possible. Others might not share these values or might refuse to be aware of the consequences of their actions, but that’s not of my business. I might argue that people who live in a harmful way towards their fellow citizens and environment are violating the NAP (non aggression principle) but usually even that is causing resentment because everyone thinks they are doing their best already. We’re not. There is room to grow, always.
Appreciate your reply and I understand where you‘re coming from.
With regards to the NAP, the question which needs to be asked is what is actually harmful. If we e.g. look at car traffic, pollution other than CO2 like nitric oxide or particulate matter are very harmful to others today and may be more harmful than CO2 might ever become. Even electric cars do not resolve this as components like tyres or breaks cause this kind of air pollution as well.
Nevertheless, if we compare car traffic today with 50 years ago, the unhealthy pollution declined massively. This is because humans are innovative and came up with solutions like catalysts.
The same can be true for climate related issues. Just think for example of rising sea levels. Did you know that 20% of the Netherlands is land reclaimed from the sea? Humans are really great at shaping their environment and will continue to strive even with rising sea levels.
I think the main reason why more and more people reject the climate debate is its unbalanced approach to environmental issues (focus on CO2 only) and the rejection of innovation as a means to mitigate climate risks.
Human flourishing brought to you by hydrocarbons ❤️
I somewhat agree.
Only because people are innovative, which we definitely are, even more so under a sound money standard, I believe we should avoid risks at all costs. People overestimate their ability to innovate. There won’t be an innovation to a 40m sea level rise within 200 years. The Netherlands will just be gone. Yes, solutions are there, bike infrastructure is a huge innovation over a car centric city, providing mental and physical health benefits for it’s citizens. Plant based alternatives to meat have had huge leaps in popularity.
The only thing that doesn’t want to really change is the people who have lived their whole life destroying the planet and not feeling bad about it.
See, that‘s where we have a different opinion. I think it‘s essential for human growth to take risks. The only reason we can have such comfortable lives today is that a lot of people took a lot of risk. Otherwise humans would still live in a cave somewhere in Central Africa.
As regards your sea level worries, I need to call BS. Even the high estimate of the IPCC for „business as usual policy“ is just a 1.1m sea level rise until 2100. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf
Also, with regards to plant-based alternatives to meat, imo that goes against the NAP. Highly processed foods consisting of mainly seed oils and soy/beans are not a balanced or healthy diet. They lack essential vitamins and contain high doses of inflammable compounds like linoleic acid. Plus, vast amounts of land would be unused if we stop cattle farming as soils are often not accesible (mountains), nutrient-dense (need for fertilizer) or warm enough to use for other agricultural products.
Oddbean new post about login | logout