Well I only managed to listen to 1 hour [of 4]
Made some notes:
Need a Greta needs conflict to push it forward {because “system” is what is or broken}
The fun of battle gets somewhere
Electrric cars, pro and cons
Friction and inertia- Andrew Revkin
{everyone agrees is major issue. And would say, always been issue.}
Both agree reducing CO2 is priority. I don’t regard it has important, assuming [magically] I could easily wave a wand to stop it 100 years ago- it seems like it’s an evil thing to want to do. And both think it’s a hard thing to do, to reduce CO2. I think there easier things to do, which would be better to spend effort [or wealth] doing.
But the struggle or conflict about CO2, might regarded a good practice in how to resolve things- I place more value in that than reducing CO2.
Or I think 400 ppm of CO2 is a good amount- better than 300 ppm.
I also think the large rise of CO2 [or 150 ppm] and our inability to measure it’s warming effects, has been good demonstration of human incompetence.
I can’t tell if Lomborg is sincere in his belief of climate changes being caused by humans or if it is a rhetorical tactic to prevent cancellation and remove one big point of contention out of the argument so that he can debate other issues that are more relevant.
I only made it about a half hour into that episode.
I am lukewarmer, who also knows that we living in an Ice Age.
The “father” of the global warming cult, thought warming would be good thing- unfortunately, CO2 didn’t cause as much warming as he thought it would do.
I tend to agree with IPCC, who were very confident that rising CO2 levels caused at least .2 C of warming. I am not very confident but I think higher CO2 levels cause about .2 C to the about 1 C of warming we have had in last 100 years.
But mostly we have been recovering from coldest period in last 5000 years which is called the Little Ice Age.
Interglacials in the past were much warmer than the Holocene, their average ocean temperature were about 4 C or warmer and sea level rise of 4 to 9 meters higher.
Our average ocean is about 3.5 C.
A cold ocean is why we in an Ice Age, and ocean of 5 C is still a cold ocean and we would still be in Ice Age.
I don’t our ocean has as warm as 5 C in last couple million years. Or 33.9 million years ago when entered this Ice Age, I believe the ocean was warmer than 5 C.
And during this Ice Age we had a low CO2 level- I would say 400 ppm is a low C02 level, and 180 ppm is a very dangerous low CO2 levels, and it was that low about 20,000 years ago.
Our higher CO2 level has increased crop yields by about 30% and higher levels will increase it by more. But I doubt it can go much higher, mainly cause China is running out of coal- if China 3 times as much coal, maybe it could get a bit higher.
I don’t agree much with NASA, but they say:
“Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
NOAA also says this.
I tend to think it is more than 90%, and a question or doubt is, how much more than 90%?
And it claimed our cold ocean has warmed by about .1 C
And that during the Little Ice Age, it cooled by about .1 C, and that the sea level fell by a few inches.
Also said, early in our Holocene sea level were about 1 to 2 meters higher.
Which as I said, is much less than past interglacial periods.
Or what is obvious and no one can argue against it, we are past our Holocene peak global air temperature which was when Sahara desert was mostly grassland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
And greatest climate change for us, was when Sahara desert became our present Sahara desert.
Another Youtube:
What’s the Ultimate Problem for Deep Space Missions – Galactic Cosmic Radiation and SpaceX Starship
Talks about GCR, which very important regarding Mars. In end talks about using lunar dust.
It seems it should be lunar water.
I am quite against NASA mining lunar water to make rocket fuel. Though just mining lunar water could quite easy. Scrapping up the top dust of lunar surface, would easier than water. But lunar water works better per meter and less mass, and crew could use water.
Using lunar dust or water from near top Earth gravity well is a lot different than water at LEO, if you want to get to Mars in 6 months.
Getting to Mars in 6 months or less is better than 7 months or more.
I think, he points out a problem with GCR, it’s might be problem for 1 crew going to Mars, but Mars is going to need lots of crewed trips to Mars.
I see GCR as crew program problem. Or one might find crew willing to take this risk, but it’s political problem which doesn’t have do the willingness of some crew or not.
Good interview, but the interviewer was kinda befuddled by Curry’s claim that her views are not really that controversial among the rank and file.
My impression is that she’s basically right, but a lot of people in the field are way more risk-averse, and way less willing to pay attention to what fixing things would cost in other directions. You get focused on one issue…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gk9gIpGvSE
Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin | Lex Fridman Podcast #339
629,680 views Nov 18, 2022
Well I only managed to listen to 1 hour [of 4]
Made some notes:
Need a Greta needs conflict to push it forward {because “system” is what is or broken}
The fun of battle gets somewhere
Electrric cars, pro and cons
Friction and inertia- Andrew Revkin
{everyone agrees is major issue. And would say, always been issue.}
Both agree reducing CO2 is priority. I don’t regard it has important, assuming [magically] I could easily wave a wand to stop it 100 years ago- it seems like it’s an evil thing to want to do. And both think it’s a hard thing to do, to reduce CO2. I think there easier things to do, which would be better to spend effort [or wealth] doing.
But the struggle or conflict about CO2, might regarded a good practice in how to resolve things- I place more value in that than reducing CO2.
Or I think 400 ppm of CO2 is a good amount- better than 300 ppm.
I also think the large rise of CO2 [or 150 ppm] and our inability to measure it’s warming effects, has been good demonstration of human incompetence.
I can’t tell if Lomborg is sincere in his belief of climate changes being caused by humans or if it is a rhetorical tactic to prevent cancellation and remove one big point of contention out of the argument so that he can debate other issues that are more relevant.
I only made it about a half hour into that episode.
I am lukewarmer, who also knows that we living in an Ice Age.
The “father” of the global warming cult, thought warming would be good thing- unfortunately, CO2 didn’t cause as much warming as he thought it would do.
I tend to agree with IPCC, who were very confident that rising CO2 levels caused at least .2 C of warming. I am not very confident but I think higher CO2 levels cause about .2 C to the about 1 C of warming we have had in last 100 years.
But mostly we have been recovering from coldest period in last 5000 years which is called the Little Ice Age.
Interglacials in the past were much warmer than the Holocene, their average ocean temperature were about 4 C or warmer and sea level rise of 4 to 9 meters higher.
Our average ocean is about 3.5 C.
A cold ocean is why we in an Ice Age, and ocean of 5 C is still a cold ocean and we would still be in Ice Age.
I don’t our ocean has as warm as 5 C in last couple million years. Or 33.9 million years ago when entered this Ice Age, I believe the ocean was warmer than 5 C.
And during this Ice Age we had a low CO2 level- I would say 400 ppm is a low C02 level, and 180 ppm is a very dangerous low CO2 levels, and it was that low about 20,000 years ago.
Our higher CO2 level has increased crop yields by about 30% and higher levels will increase it by more. But I doubt it can go much higher, mainly cause China is running out of coal- if China 3 times as much coal, maybe it could get a bit higher.
I don’t agree much with NASA, but they say:
“Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, our global ocean has a very high heat capacity. It has absorbed 90% of the warming that has occurred in recent decades due to increasing greenhouse gases, and the top few meters of the ocean store as much heat as Earth’s entire atmosphere.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ocean-warming/
NOAA also says this.
I tend to think it is more than 90%, and a question or doubt is, how much more than 90%?
And it claimed our cold ocean has warmed by about .1 C
And that during the Little Ice Age, it cooled by about .1 C, and that the sea level fell by a few inches.
Also said, early in our Holocene sea level were about 1 to 2 meters higher.
Which as I said, is much less than past interglacial periods.
Or what is obvious and no one can argue against it, we are past our Holocene peak global air temperature which was when Sahara desert was mostly grassland:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
And greatest climate change for us, was when Sahara desert became our present Sahara desert.
Another Youtube:
What’s the Ultimate Problem for Deep Space Missions – Galactic Cosmic Radiation and SpaceX Starship
Talks about GCR, which very important regarding Mars. In end talks about using lunar dust.
It seems it should be lunar water.
I am quite against NASA mining lunar water to make rocket fuel. Though just mining lunar water could quite easy. Scrapping up the top dust of lunar surface, would easier than water. But lunar water works better per meter and less mass, and crew could use water.
Using lunar dust or water from near top Earth gravity well is a lot different than water at LEO, if you want to get to Mars in 6 months.
Getting to Mars in 6 months or less is better than 7 months or more.
I think, he points out a problem with GCR, it’s might be problem for 1 crew going to Mars, but Mars is going to need lots of crewed trips to Mars.
I see GCR as crew program problem. Or one might find crew willing to take this risk, but it’s political problem which doesn’t have do the willingness of some crew or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNaaHvSkP2Q
Good interview, but the interviewer was kinda befuddled by Curry’s claim that her views are not really that controversial among the rank and file.
My impression is that she’s basically right, but a lot of people in the field are way more risk-averse, and way less willing to pay attention to what fixing things would cost in other directions. You get focused on one issue…