Global Warming - why half a degree matters

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the critical implications of global warming, specifically the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C temperature increases. A recent study highlights that a mere half-degree rise can lead to significant environmental changes, including a projected 4-inch increase in sea level. Participants emphasize the importance of reducing carbon footprints through various means, such as adopting electric vehicles and addressing unregulated emissions from private boats. The conversation also touches on the necessity of adhering to scientific literature and guidelines in discussions about climate change.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of climate science and global warming terminology
  • Familiarity with peer-reviewed studies on climatology
  • Knowledge of carbon footprint reduction strategies
  • Awareness of environmental monitoring tools like Ecova
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the findings of the latest studies on the impacts of 1.5°C vs 2°C global warming
  • Explore methods for reducing water consumption in food production, particularly regarding beef
  • Investigate the role of electric vehicles in reducing carbon emissions
  • Learn about government incentives for energy efficiency improvements
USEFUL FOR

Environmental scientists, climate activists, policymakers, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of global warming and effective strategies for mitigating its effects.

waternohitter
Messages
52
Reaction score
44
1.5 C vs 2 C global warming: New study shows why half a degree matters

Global warming is scary. It makes me wonder why people don't take it too seriously. Though I have read somewhere that the energy consumption of the US actually went down by a bit last year so maybe people are taking baby steps.
I've been trying to do my part by changing some of my lights to solar powered ones and gathering rain water to use for washing the car and stuff. I'm glad that the company where I work is going to launch a go-green program as well.
What do you think people should do to further lessen their carbon footprint, water consumption and wastes?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
waternohitter said:
What do you think people should do to further lessen their carbon footprint, water consumption and wastes?
There are lots of things! People emphasis car emission and how everybody should car pool, but, really, they are not the main causes. We have to do yearly smog checks and whatnot and this controls carbon foot prints relatively well—and then more and more people are purchasing electric cars. However, there are a lot of things that are not controlled. A huge example is private boats/yachts. There’s really no effort put into control smog check of boats. I always thought that that would be an easy step towards cleaner air, but nobody is putting that into practice.
 
Last edited:
waternohitter said:
1.5 C vs 2 C global warming: New study shows why half a degree matters

Global warming is scary. It makes me wonder why people don't take it too seriously. Though I have read somewhere that the energy consumption of the US actually went down by a bit last year so maybe people are taking baby steps.
I've been trying to do my part by changing some of my lights to solar powered ones and gathering rain water to use for washing the car and stuff. I'm glad that the company where I work is going to launch a go-green program as well.
What do you think people should do to further lessen their carbon footprint, water consumption and wastes?
ProfuselyQuarky said:
There are lots of things! People emphasis car emission and how everybody should car pool, but, really, they are not the main causes. We have to do yearly smog checks and whatnot and this controls carbon foot prints relatively well—and then more and more people are purchasing electric cars. However, there are a lot of things that are not controlled. A huge example is private boats/yachts. There’s really no effort put into control smog check of boats. I always thought that that would be an easy step towards cleaner air, but nobody is putting that into practice.
Please remember that Global Warming discussions were banned for a while here at the PF, and only recently have been allowed again. We are only allowed to discuss the scientific literature and studies about GW. Discussing the article you posted @waternohitter is fine. But if the discussion wanders off into other things not related to the article, the thread might be closed.

From the GW discussion rules stickie thread at the top of the Earth forum:
Greg Bernhardt said:
CC/GW threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of weather, climatology, and global warming that have been published in peer-reviewed journals and well-established textbooks.

Threads such "Is global warming real" or "Are humans the cause of global warming" are too broad and are subject to being locked. We want to encourage questions about specific research, news and events involved with climate science.
 
Last edited:
* comment removed *
I had not seen berkeman's post above, and my reply was related to the denialists rather than the facts of climate science.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ProfuselyQuarky and berkeman
Looks like our company is really serious about this. They even got http://www.ecova.com/solutions.aspx to monitor their energy usage for them. Is there a government bonus or something if you get to lower your energy bill?
 
Never ceases to amaze me how complex our climate is.
 
The most efficient way to save water is to not eat beef. 1 pound of beef requires more than 2000 gallons of water, that breaks down to about 600 gallons per burger.
 
I think the best way is the 3 R's ( Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) and make the most out of everything.
 
sankofam said:
The most efficient way to save water is to not eat beef. 1 pound of beef requires more than 2000 gallons of water, that breaks down to about 600 gallons per burger.

This makes no sense. Where does the water go? Is it annihilated? Are cow stomachs made of anti-matter?
 
  • #10
berkeman said:
... We are only allowed to discuss the scientific literature and studies about GW. Discussing the article you posted @waternohitter is fine. But if the discussion wanders off into other things not related to the article, the thread might be closed...

The thread opened with "Global warming is scary". There has been no discussion in any post about the referenced study, and it's assertion of a 4" difference in sea level rise from 0.5C.
berkeman said:
Please remember that Global Warming discussions were banned for a while here at the PF, and only recently have been allowed again. We are only allowed to discuss the scientific literature and studies about GW. Discussing the article you posted @waternohitter is fine. But if the discussion wanders off into other things not related to the article, the thread might be closed.

From the GW discussion rules stickie thread at the top of the Earth forum:
 
  • #11
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim hardy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
49K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
17K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
34K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
9K