| | | quote | Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
OOOhhssss NNNoooeeeessss
RUN !! CLIMATE CHANGE !! THE OIL....errr....MEAT.....errrr....COAL...errr.....SOMETHING IS KILLING US ALL....
Uhhhhh.....
JUST how much was being used in 1616, 1921, 1760, 1868. 1942 ??
https://www.miamiherald.com...rticle264446131.html
  |
|
So there have been severe and prolonged dry periods or droughts that affected large swathes of Europe, and one in particular, during the early 1600s, well before the full blossoming of the Industrial Revolution and well before the rapidly expanding use of fossil fuels that started in the 1870s or thereabouts.
The inference is that whatever might have caused this drought in Europe, in the early1600s, had to be something other than anthropogenic or human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide or CO2 and other greenhouse gases, because in the current conversation, that is "fossil fuels."
Actually, I've read about the burning of peat as a fuel, which became widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages. Peat is also a fossil fuel, because when peat is burned in quantities, it emits CO2 that had been previously removed from the atmosphere by the growth of vegetation over the course of previous centuries.
But here's the rub: Was this drought that struck Europe in the 1600s part of a global warming event, or something more localized to Europe?
I think it must have been localized to Europe, because if it were a global warming event, I believe that would be known to climate researchers, and published by climate researchers in their specialist's journals, and that would have been picked up and reported by news media like the New York Times and NBC News (etc.) in their Science reporting, and likely I would now remember reading about it—but I don't.
It would be a good topic to pursue online, for any Climate Science "maven" (like myself.)
My reading of the climate researchers is that they are not without humility, and do understand that they do not have complete knowledge and understanding of climate phenomena, whether it's historical (like this drought in Europe in the early 1600s), or current, or future, in terms of their predictions.
Nevertheless, the climate researchers are saying that enough is known to place a bet, and the bet should be placed on reducing the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere as a result of human activities, whether it's from aircraft, ships, cars and trucks, or from construction with concrete, or from certain agricultural practices and land use decisions; etc. In other words, a "full court press" against CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions from whatever humans create or do.
To
not place this bet would itself be an unwise bet, considering how much is known.
That's a "whole of humanity" kind of perspective.
What about any one individual's perspective?
If you're of a certain age already, you don't have much "skin in the game"—personally. You will be "history" before the predictable (and likely) higher temperature regimes, significantly higher sea levels, and more frequent weather extremes are in full swing.
Another thing to be mindful of (if the game interests you to that extent) is the collateral benefits of a "greener" society. "Collateral" meaning other kinds of benefits, aside from reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
I think that fossil fuels are inherently "dirty" and environmentally damaging, even apart from the climate-related CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions that are consequential to their production and consumption as energy sources.
It's kind of the same for Electric Vehicles and EV batteries, but there I think there is more possibility of improvement. Cleaner ways to mine or otherwise produce the lithium that is currently a major component of the EV batteries. And getting away from lithium and cobalt and the other more problematic raw materials that are needed for EVs and replacing them with other materials that are more benign to the environment, in terms of their production, use and recycling or disposal. This is the stuff of everyday news reports.
By way of contrast, how much more can actually be done to further "clean up" and "green up" the oil and gas industries, and the internal combustion engines of various kinds that currently power the overwhelming majority of air, sea and road vehicles? I'm more optimistic about Electric, compared to any possibilities for that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-20-2022).]
