Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[tacoman25]

Climate change is real, and there are certainly risks that come along with it.

That being said, fear-mongering and politicization of climate change is also very real. Both things can be true - and don't trust anyone from either "side" who speaks in certainties.

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

As much of the scientific community sees it, the speech openly mocked the First Law of Thermodynamics, the quantum mechanics of molecular absorption, and the established concepts of radiative forcing and planetary energy balance. Trump dismissed these fundamental laws of physics, and the principles derived from them, as a “scam,” a “hoax,” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

History will record this repudiation of evidence as among humanity's worst policy excesses. They will mark this speech as an iconic moment where comfort in falsehood outweighed the responsibility to truth and raw ignorance uprooted scientific understanding. They will see this moment as a vivid symptom of a Great Denial: a period when humanity still had real power to avert a return to mid-Pliocene or worse conditions yet chose  to perpetuate the profitability of industries responsible and policy paralysis instead. They will place such rhetoric alongside the campaigns that once denied the link between tobacco and lung cancer or between CFCs and ozone depletion, citing it as evidence that many, including those in positions of authority, preferred tribal loyalty and ideology over science, evidence, and truth.

Future generations condemned to endure the realities of a mid-Pliocene climate will condemn those who consigned them to an unmanageable world. No political gimmick will change the physics. There are no instant, magical methods to draw down the accumulated greenhouse gases, reverse the radiative forcing, or reglaciate the ice sheets that have already disappeared, much less the much greater damage that will occur in decades and centuries ahead. 

He could have just been honest and said we know climate change is real but we will adjust.

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, tacoman25 said:

Climate change is real, and there are certainly risks that come along with it.

That being said, fear-mongering and politicization of climate change is also very real. Both things can be true - and don't trust anyone from either "side" who speaks in certainties.

humanity will adjust to it, we need to cut down the human population anyway

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

By “unmanageable,” I mean a future marked by significant disruption (economic dislocation,  migration, and irreversible environmental/biodiversity loss). These changes will not unfold overnight, but they are already being set in motion. Even a one-meter rise in global sea level, plausible by 2100 and very likely to continue beyond, would reclaim entire neighborhoods of many major coastal cities. Even at one-meter, tens of millions of people would be displaced from major coastal cities.

See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8208600/

We don’t have to rely solely on climate models to understand where things are headed under current policy. Paleoclimate evidence is unambiguous. During the mid-Pliocene, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations hovered around 350–450 ppm (levels we have already reached) global temperatures were roughly 3 °C (5.4 °F) warmer than today, and sea level stood at least 10 meters higher than at present. 

See: https://sciences.ucf.edu/biology/d4lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/08/Science-2015-Dutton-.pdf

The climate system responds slowly but inexorably to sustained forcing. Ice sheets have not yet equilibrated to today’s CO2 levels, but over centuries to millennia continued melt is inevitable. Research indicates potential hysteresis once a critical threshold is crossed. Under hysteresis, cooling back to current temperatures will not fully restore lost ice. Some modeling places the Greenland Ice Sheet’s critical threshold at roughly 1.7 °C–2.3 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, a range that will likely be surpassed later this century.

Warming also amplifies extremes rather than simply shifting the average. Climate change does not “cause” every drought, heatwave, or flood, but it makes them more frequent and more severe, a conclusion supported by a rapidly expanding body of attribution science.

See: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/

Being honest about these well-documented risks is not scaremongering. Communicating evidence-based threats, whether to coastal cities, food and water security, or human health, is a fundamental responsibility of scientists, leaders, and citizens. Describing dangers that the data clearly support is not “spreading fear.” It is providing the information societies need to plan and adapt.

That some shrink from the task e.g., as one witnessed at the UN General Assembly, is not an act of courageous leadership. It is an abdication of leadership responsibility and a demonstration of leadership failure. It is a profound display of disregard for the wellbeing of future generations who will have to live with the consequences of bad choices made by those who will evade those very consequences by their having departed the scene well before the tragic returns on their bad policy investments are realized.

Given this evidence, the burden of proof no longer lies with scientists who have documented human-induced climate change and its risks. It lies with those who advocate inaction, who must explain how a 3 °C or warmer world relative to pre-industrial temperatures, which is likely by 2100 on the current path, could remain “manageable” despite escalating threats to food and water systems, ongoing ocean acidification, intensifying extreme weather, and one-meter sea-level rise (with more to come beyond 2100). It is their burden to prove at a high confidence level that the laws of physics somehow don't apply in the case of greenhouse gases.

Finally, claims that models are unreliable are belied by their track record. Climate models have consistently captured the long-term warming trend with striking accuracy despite the climate system’s complexity.

See: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

But we can also say that the current standard of living and consumerism that plagues humanity is also unsustainable and sooner or later that was going to come to an end.

Climate change is a huge problem but there are multiple aspects of human society that are unsustainable, starting with having 8+ billion people on the planet, the usage of chemical pesticides (something the UN also mentions as an existential threat), etc.

 

[LibertyBell]

10 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

As much of the scientific community sees it, the speech openly mocked the First Law of Thermodynamics, the quantum mechanics of molecular absorption, and the established concepts of radiative forcing and planetary energy balance. Trump dismissed these fundamental laws of physics, and the principles derived from them, as a “scam,” a “hoax,” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

History will record this repudiation of evidence as among humanity's worst policy excesses. They will mark this speech as an iconic moment where comfort in falsehood outweighed the responsibility to truth and raw ignorance uprooted scientific understanding. They will see this moment as a vivid symptom of a Great Denial: a period when humanity still had real power to avert a return to mid-Pliocene or worse conditions yet chose  to perpetuate the profitability of industries responsible and policy paralysis instead. They will place such rhetoric alongside the campaigns that once denied the link between tobacco and lung cancer or between CFCs and ozone depletion, citing it as evidence that many, including those in positions of authority, preferred tribal loyalty and ideology over science, evidence, and truth.

Future generations condemned to endure the realities of a mid-Pliocene climate will condemn those who consigned them to an unmanageable world. No political gimmick will change the physics. There are no instant, magical methods to draw down the accumulated greenhouse gases, reverse the radiative forcing, or reglaciate the ice sheets that have already disappeared, much less the much greater damage that will occur in decades and centuries ahead. 

what was a mid Pliocene climate like and what kind of flora and fauna were around back then Don?

is there any 3D simulation we can run to see what the Earth looked like in different eras and what kind of species were on the planet back then?

I'm wondering if the Pliocene was the era of giant mammals like Baluchitherium, giant terror birds (Dinorthus), giant sloths, etc.

 

[donsutherland1]

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

what was a mid Pliocene climate like and what kind of flora and fauna were around back then Don?

is there any 3D simulation we can run to see what the Earth looked like in different eras and what kind of species were on the planet back then?

I'm wondering if the Pliocene was the era of giant mammals like Baluchitherium, giant terror birds (Dinorthus), giant sloths, etc.

 

The landscape was comprised of savannas, wetlands, and woodlands. Tundra and Taiga were greatly reduced. Greenland's ice sheet was much smaller.

The fauna of the period included both familiar and extinct animals. Early ancestors of modern elephants, giraffes, antelopes, along saber-toothed cats and short-faced hyenas were present. Giant ground sloths, camels, and early horses were present in North America Megalodon sharks rule the seas. Whales were evolving into today's forms. 

Early hominins emerged in Africa.

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

But we can also say that the current standard of living and consumerism that plagues humanity is also unsustainable and sooner or later that was going to come to an end.

Climate change is a huge problem but there are multiple aspects of human society that are unsustainable, starting with having 8+ billion people on the planet, the usage of chemical pesticides (something the UN also mentions as an existential threat), etc.

 

Yes, at the current level of consumption, humanity is on an unsustainable path. The concept of "Earth Overshoot Day" captures a current reality where humanity is consuming more resources each year than what the world can provide. Add pollution (unrestrained greenhouse gas-led geoengineering, plastics/microplastics, a range of chemicals and derivatives) into the mix and that further illustrates unsustainability.

[bluewave]

The one certainty is that the global temperatures will continue to rise as China keeps burning so much coal. 

For now, the world isn’t performing an energy transition but an energy addition, where renewables top up oil, gas and coal. Regardless of well-intended green aspirations, that will remain the case for years, if not decades, unless governments impose significant changes.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/the-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-it-s-nowhere-near-20250911-p5mudo.html

 

[ChescoWx]

14 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

By “unmanageable,” I mean a future marked by significant disruption (economic dislocation,  migration, and irreversible environmental/biodiversity loss). These changes will not unfold overnight, but they are already being set in motion. Even a one-meter rise in global sea level, plausible by 2100 and very likely to continue beyond, would reclaim entire neighborhoods of many major coastal cities. Even at one-meter, tens of millions of people would be displaced from major coastal cities.

See: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8208600/

We don’t have to rely solely on climate models to understand where things are headed under current policy. Paleoclimate evidence is unambiguous. During the mid-Pliocene, when atmospheric CO2 concentrations hovered around 350–450 ppm (levels we have already reached) global temperatures were roughly 3 °C (5.4 °F) warmer than today, and sea level stood at least 10 meters higher than at present. 

See: https://sciences.ucf.edu/biology/d4lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2018/08/Science-2015-Dutton-.pdf

The climate system responds slowly but inexorably to sustained forcing. Ice sheets have not yet equilibrated to today’s CO2 levels, but over centuries to millennia continued melt is inevitable. Research indicates potential hysteresis once a critical threshold is crossed. Under hysteresis, cooling back to current temperatures will not fully restore lost ice. Some modeling places the Greenland Ice Sheet’s critical threshold at roughly 1.7 °C–2.3 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, a range that will likely be surpassed later this century.

Warming also amplifies extremes rather than simply shifting the average. Climate change does not “cause” every drought, heatwave, or flood, but it makes them more frequent and more severe, a conclusion supported by a rapidly expanding body of attribution science.

See: https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/

Being honest about these well-documented risks is not scaremongering. Communicating evidence-based threats, whether to coastal cities, food and water security, or human health, is a fundamental responsibility of scientists, leaders, and citizens. Describing dangers that the data clearly support is not “spreading fear.” It is providing the information societies need to plan and adapt.

That some shrink from the task e.g., as one witnessed at the UN General Assembly, is not an act of courageous leadership. It is an abdication of leadership responsibility and a demonstration of leadership failure. It is a profound display of disregard for the wellbeing of future generations who will have to live with the consequences of bad choices made by those who will evade those very consequences by their having departed the scene well before the tragic returns on their bad policy investments are realized.

Given this evidence, the burden of proof no longer lies with scientists who have documented human-induced climate change and its risks. It lies with those who advocate inaction, who must explain how a 3 °C or warmer world relative to pre-industrial temperatures, which is likely by 2100 on the current path, could remain “manageable” despite escalating threats to food and water systems, ongoing ocean acidification, intensifying extreme weather, and one-meter sea-level rise (with more to come beyond 2100). It is their burden to prove at a high confidence level that the laws of physics somehow don't apply in the case of greenhouse gases.

Finally, claims that models are unreliable are belied by their track record. Climate models have consistently captured the long-term warming trend with striking accuracy despite the climate system’s complexity.

See: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

You lost me with another climate forecast that will as have the others not verify "Even a one-meter rise in global sea level, plausible by 2100"....it is of course not plausible and in fact almost impossible to see a 3 foot rise in the next 75 years!!

[ChescoWx]

[ChescoWx]

https://www.freedom-research.org/p/us-climate-report-the-climate-research

[donsutherland1]

45 minutes ago, ChescoWx said:

https://www.freedom-research.org/p/us-climate-report-the-climate-research

And the fact check on the political report aimed at reversing the EPA's endangerment finding.

https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/doe-factcheck/images/Carbonbrief-DOE-factcheck.pdf

[tacoman25]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

The one certainty is that the global temperatures will continue to rise as China keeps burning so much coal. 

For now, the world isn’t performing an energy transition but an energy addition, where renewables top up oil, gas and coal. Regardless of well-intended green aspirations, that will remain the case for years, if not decades, unless governments impose significant changes.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/the-end-of-fossil-fuel-era-it-s-nowhere-near-20250911-p5mudo.html

 

Are there examples of large, advanced technology countries that have transitioned almost completely away from fossil fuels?

[bluewave]

On 9/26/2025 at 12:11 PM, tacoman25 said:

Are there examples of large, advanced technology countries that have transitioned almost completely away from fossil fuels?

Germany has been struggling due to the cost and challenge of building out a smart grid and long transmission lines which are necessary for wider renewable energy implementation.
 

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Germany has been struggling due to the cost and challenge of building out a smart grid and long transmission lines which are necessary for wider renewable energy implementation.
 

 

Germany is a screwed up nation on multiple fronts, we shouldn't be using them as an example.

[chubbs]

  Trump's speech showed how unprepared the US is becoming for the future.

https://electrotechrevolution.substack.com/p/rewiring-the-energy-debate?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web

 

[bluewave]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

Germany is a screwed up nation on multiple fronts, we shouldn't be using them as an example.

Germany is  one of the few high population and heavy industry nations that has reached 50-60% wind and solar usage on the planet. So the challenges they have faced getting closer to 100% are informative for the rest of the world that wants to go this route. They are 25 years into their energy transition.

[SnoSki14]

China has a lot of renewables and is moving in that direction but they're still accelerating on emissions. 

However I do think they're poised to become the leader here and I see a rapid reversal in the next 15-20 years. 

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, SnoSki14 said:

China has a lot of renewables and is moving in that direction but they're still accelerating on emissions. 

However I do think they're poised to become the leader here and I see a rapid reversal in the next 15-20 years. 

China's CO2 emissions are peaking not accelerating. That said China coal use is massive and coal interests are putting up a fight. Its unclear how China's policy towards coal will evolve. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/

https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/chinas-coal-is-losing-ground-but-not-letting-go/

[bluewave]

50 minutes ago, chubbs said:

China's CO2 emissions are peaking not accelerating. That said China coal use is massive and coal interests are putting up a fight. Its unclear how China's policy towards coal will evolve. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/

https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/chinas-coal-is-losing-ground-but-not-letting-go/

It’s good news for them that they have been removing sulfur dioxide at the coal plants and leading to cleaner air than they had just a decade ago. But this could also be a part of the puzzle as to why we have seen a sudden jump in global temperatures. The cleaner air could also mean less of an imperative for them to replace coal pants with renewables so we may see a long plateau but not a decline in coal burning.

https://www.wired.com/story/in-an-odd-twist-cleaner-air-in-china-may-mean-a-warmer-earth/

OVER THE PAST 15 years, Chinese officials saved the lives of an estimated more than 200,000 residents by reducing the air pollution from coal-fired power plants. But this public health campaign has an unfortunate side effect: The drop in pollutants is helping warm the planet.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/china-has-reduced-sulphur-dioxide-emissions-by-more-than-two-thirds-in-the-last-15-years

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, bluewave said:

Germany is  one of the few high population and heavy industry nations that has reached 50-60% wind and solar usage on the planet. So the challenges they have faced getting closer to 100% are informative for the rest of the world that wants to go this route. They are 25 years into their energy transition.

Politically though they are unstable, with an extreme right wing element there as well as for some reason backing away from nuclear and returning to coal.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

It’s good news for them that they have been removing sulfur dioxide at the coal plants and leading to cleaner air than they had just a decade ago. But this could also be a part of the puzzle as to why we have seen a sudden jump in global temperatures. The cleaner air could also mean less of an imperative for them to replace coal pants with renewables so we may see a long plateau but not a decline in coal burning.

https://www.wired.com/story/in-an-odd-twist-cleaner-air-in-china-may-mean-a-warmer-earth/

OVER THE PAST 15 years, Chinese officials saved the lives of an estimated more than 200,000 residents by reducing the air pollution from coal-fired power plants. But this public health campaign has an unfortunate side effect: The drop in pollutants is helping warm the planet.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/china-has-reduced-sulphur-dioxide-emissions-by-more-than-two-thirds-in-the-last-15-years

cleaner air could also mean warmer air because of less solar blockage with particulates.

 

[LibertyBell]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

China's CO2 emissions are peaking not accelerating. That said China coal use is massive and coal interests are putting up a fight. Its unclear how China's policy towards coal will evolve. 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-solar-growth-keeps-chinas-co2-falling-in-first-half-of-2025/

https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/chinas-coal-is-losing-ground-but-not-letting-go/

in a so-called *communist* dictatorship like China, how is big coal putting up a fight? sounds very crapitalistic to me!

[Typhoon Tip]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

It’s good news for them that they have been removing sulfur dioxide at the coal plants and leading to cleaner air than they had just a decade ago. But this could also be a part of the puzzle as to why we have seen a sudden jump in global temperatures. The cleaner air could also mean less of an imperative for them to replace coal pants with renewables so we may see a long plateau but not a decline in coal burning.

https://www.wired.com/story/in-an-odd-twist-cleaner-air-in-china-may-mean-a-warmer-earth/

OVER THE PAST 15 years, Chinese officials saved the lives of an estimated more than 200,000 residents by reducing the air pollution from coal-fired power plants. But this public health campaign has an unfortunate side effect: The drop in pollutants is helping warm the planet.

https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/china-has-reduced-sulphur-dioxide-emissions-by-more-than-two-thirds-in-the-last-15-years

They're definitely doing more ... just by virtue of acknowledging the problems.  They're also - from appearance alone ...granted - solving the problems they can solve more easily, first. I perfectly valid longer term stratagem.   But is a strategy nonetheless.  

Contrasting, America has turned their faces toward the wrong side of history ( science, much less objective reality - ) in their - apparent - seeking of comfort.  It's really a populist movement based on a combination of fear and anger: two of Satan's favorite weapons against humanity ... ha ('not religious; that's just dark humor)

It's not even climate that causes them pain.  It was the other aspects of pure humanism that sent this spiraling decay of responsibility.  It's a quirk in history that it conflicts with the climate doom awareness.  If the Libs didn't yank WOKEism into something that's clearly biologically unsound ... and start Karenizing hard-ons and ruining lives, and even pushing that agenda into formal legislation .. they would not have marginalized huge voting block populations to the point of anger.   That's why we're in a veritable teetering with a fascist overthrow - which in itself is fantastically being ignored.   This whole morass blocks any agenda having to do with climate consideration in America, because, of the two, Climate does not appeal as the real danger to every days. They other stuff does.  

I just want to say something here in capital, embolden letters to signify that yes ... I am yelling at at these consummate dumb mother fuckers walking the earth among those that are trying to spare in the wrath of man's idiocy.   Temperature rises associate with climate change does not cause species extinction, TEMPERATURE RISE HAPPENING           !FASTER!      THAN SPECIES CAN ADAPT is causing the problem

Lol... just so we're clear.   There really seems to be a huge variance in intellectual capacity.  I used to think this was a moral problem.  Like the "wont' happen in my life time" wasn't bad enough, right?  Yeah there's that sentiment going on out there but ... mmm, that's not it.  There's a problem with capacitance in multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional comprehension.  Lot of long words to just simply say, simpletons, which unfortunately are greater than 50% of the population density, just can't understand much of this.  It would be okay if that was the only problem ... sort of.  I mean at least morally.  But the problem is, they are dumb fucks that instead of learning, choose the easy road of toeing the line with likes of which have 0 qualifications for rendering advice and truth on the matter; unwittingly and without conditional objective analysis, aligning with with both moronic and immoral leaders.   

This is not very likely to end well.  

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Temperature rises associate with climate change does not cause species extinction, TEMPERATURE RISE HAPPENING           !FASTER!      THAN SPECIES CAN ADAPT is causing the problem

Lol... just so we're clear.   There really seems to be a huge variance in intellectual capacity.  I used to think this was a moral problem.  Like the "wont' happen in my life time" wasn't bad enough, right?  Yeah there's that sentiment going on out there but ... mmm, that's not it.  There's a problem with capacitance in multi-disciplinary, multi-dimensional comprehension.  Lot of long words to just simply say, simpletons, which unfortunately are greater than 50% of the population density, just can't understand much of this. 

This is why I periodically call attention to social media influencers and celebrities (i.e., Bastardi, Wielicki, Martz, etc) on X and elsewhere. They push themselves as climate experts when they have little or no knowledge of climate/climate change while frequently attacking scientists who have devoted their lives and careers to cutting-edge research. These influencers/celebrities see things only in terms of cherry-picked ideas in their own fields constrained by their own ideology and personal preferences, to distort the science and undermine public understanding. Moreover, they prey on public ignorance to build their status.