we had a little ice age, roughly from ad 1300 until ad 1850.. winters got colder.. so what did human kind do about it? did we say; omg we are getting cold, we need to burn more fossil fuels, we need to invent the internal combustion engine, we need too convene the g20, we need to invent al gore? thank god we did not; we invented the industrial revolution, true, and things got better.. but what never fails to raise my eyebrows, is the thought that we can influence the climate at all; we are only a tiny cog in this ill-designed alarmclock we call the cosmos, where from did we get the bloody arrogance? i really wonder.
From our powerful science and technology, industry, sheer numbers that keep increasing and using ever more energy from fossil fuel etc. etc. etc. Sadly, when you "burn" a hole in the ozone layer the size of a continent... Ach, never mind...
We should take responsibility of what we do with the nature... Remember we had CFC in our fridges, aircons and used it in aerosol cans to gain pressure. Science could reproduce a clear relation of CFC to the ozone hole. CFCs are not the only factors for the hole, but by banning CFCs the hole did not spread above Antarctica...in the meantime scientists think it closes 2050+.... Why did it work to replace CFCs but to reduce CO2 does not? Because too much capital/profit is involved in fuels and nobody is willing to give something for the benefit of others (actually all humans). Does one see oneself as individual human, or part of a social group, or part of humankind or nature, or part of 'all'? In other words: For 'what/whom' do I care? One could now argue and say: To reduce CO2 has no influence on global warming. Good, OK. But we burn fossil fuel, by doing that we use stored energy, the process of storage took millions of years. Brown coal for instance is 2-65 million years old. It originates from organic processes, means its energy comes actually from the sun. By burning such we reduce them, we need oxygen and we produce CO2 and water. BUT this is a very fast process compared to its formation. We are taking a huge influence on the balance (simplified): 1 Organic carbon(fuel) +Oxygen--->Energy +CO2+water 2 CO2+Energy(sun)+water--->Oxygen+ Organic carbon We don't have to stop to produce CO2 we have to keep its level means to keep the balance. It’s the same like taking money out of your pocket, if you don't keep a balance (income) it gets empty. I mean we became intelligent enough to learn from nature how this balance works. How it gets disturbed and how we can live conform to it= along with the nature. The question is not can we have an influence on climate at all, the question is: How long does it take that our influence on nature by creating imbalances has become a level that it is 'too late'...to be a part of her. The actual limiting factor is the sun, not the fossil fuels. Any other things become the limiting factor when humans create an imbalance there. I mean if the goal of humankind is to exist in future and humans are (already) intelligent enough to understand an upcoming imbalance which will be limiting then we should act that way to keep balance, no? The whole global warming thing has degenerated to a political issue. Capitalists try to be social, but as less as possible..... I think even because it is controversial they are glad people focus on this...so they can always have excuses. I wonder what will be first.....a 'too' warm earth..or no fuel left anymore......
@nodnar: Oh we -can- influence the weather. But can we fix the damage that modifying the weather does to the planet? TBH, I'm glad that I'm a senior. I won't be around when Rome burns.
And that was planned. Just like our election process (Which reminds me more of a game show (WWF) than a political process) Put schitt candidates in the faces of the people enough times and they will eventually grow apathetic to the whole process. Then, the powers that be can do whatever they want. Either by 'fudging' collected data or influencing the voting process. That same thing is happening with Global Warming.
Yen, I could swear I read that replacement for CFCs, the HCFCs are many times worse, contrary to "scientific" propaganda (by their inventors), as they are much more stable and can persist in creating many chain reactions in the higher atmosphere... Look: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=120 http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm https://www.chemours.com/Refrigerants/en_US/assets/downloads/20101001_UNEP_Kontomaris_paper.pdf - 2007 seems to be the year when the replacements were agreed upon... obviously for a very good reason...
AFAIK HCFCs (we are speaking of a group of substances) are generally not as stable as CFCs..BUT have a huge impact on the greenhouse effect. They also still can destroy the ozone layer. Simplified one can say the less halogens there are in the molecule the more harmless.... The replacement of CFCs with halogen free substances did not work in one step..the attributes to be a good refrigerant of halogen containing substances predominated first so they were also replaced with HCFCs which are partly halogenated CFCs AFAIK concerning propellant gas (aerosol cans and the like) the replacement with halogen free substances worked better. With current regulations all refrigerants should become halogen free in the near future.
Yeah. AFAIK hydrocarbons (Methane)- not from farting only also from burping lol (of course also from industry, natural gas, petroleum) have still a greater impact on greenhouse effect than CO2 (per mass)
i have an idea. pipe the methane from cows bums to a device that burns that methane, use that to heat water for homes, or heat the water to generate steam and use that steam to drive a generator creating electricity.
All nice and beautiful, yet still.... There is NO way to change this, even IF this were wanted. Don't waste your breath. Check out what is called "Kohlefloeze" in your language in Northern China, you will find, they cannot be extinguished and if it is indeed CO² that causes the climate to change, they produce enough by themselves....
Welcome to the club..... Do you feel guilty that our generation has not come up with any better politicians, than we did?
While that may be true, "Put schitt candidates in the faces of the people enough times and they will eventually grow apathetic to the whole process", requires peoples that let that happen to them... THere is one candidate who represents money, corruption and wars, "politics as usual" and there are Bernei Sanders and Trump, whatever you may think of him, who are not "politicvs as usual". Now take a guess, who will become president? Its not the politicians, sorry, it is the idiotic masses... pointing fingers is easy. Try this: Masse und Macht 1960 (Crowds and Power), by Elias Canetti
You are correct By the way, the problem is called capitalism. Which, by the way again, is the true reason why there will be no chance to stop climate change. Even if there were a way to do it. (If it actually is men made...)
"With current regulations all refrigerants should become halogen free in the near future. " While that is probably true, what difference did that actually make? I mean, other than make a lot more profit for a few corporations...