Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

1,501 to 1,550 of 5,074 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>

Guys (and gals)! Can we at least agree that it doesn't matter what other events are occurring to affect the climate? It only matters what WE, the human race is doing to affect the climate and this world. That is the ONLY thing that we can really control. No matter what effect we are having, it is a negative affect. Cleaning up the mess and being responsible humans is all that matters.

Edit - All I want to know is what ideas do you all have to help make this world a better place? This is a beautiful world and I want to keep it beautiful.


Sharoth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Honestly, I doubt that the human race will be wiped out. We will hurt the world, but it has been through worse. HAVING said that, it still doesn't make it right and we need to do something about the damage that we are doing. Plus, I live on the coastline. I don't want to possibly be under water. I am already under water with my mortgage, so I do not want to repeat it. ~grins~

The human race might not be wiped out, but it will be a pretty crappy existence that we bequeath to our descendants. They'll be living in the ruins of a civilisation that won't be able to bootstrap itself back up because we've already dug up and used the easily extractable resources. It will be a human race that has gone through a dieoff so great that the Black Plague would look like a weekend outbreak of Legionaire's disease.

For a look at how the bad scenario plays out, I submit Earth 2100

Oh, I agree that it could be (and probably will be) pretty horrible.

The point that I'm making is that it's not a binary moment. The video describes various degrees of horror and pestilence. It's disngenous at the least to come into this with an attitude of "well we missed the deadline at 2012, or 2017, so there's no point of doing anything at all." Lucy's World demonstrates that no matter how bad the situation can get, we have the choice to make it worse, or better. What we need is the collective will.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Honestly, I doubt that the human race will be wiped out. We will hurt the world, but it has been through worse. HAVING said that, it still doesn't make it right and we need to do something about the damage that we are doing. Plus, I live on the coastline. I don't want to possibly be under water. I am already under water with my mortgage, so I do not want to repeat it. ~grins~

The human race might not be wiped out, but it will be a pretty crappy existence that we bequeath to our descendants. They'll be living in the ruins of a civilisation that won't be able to bootstrap itself back up because we've already dug up and used the easily extractable resources. It will be a human race that has gone through a dieoff so great that the Black Plague would look like a weekend outbreak of Legionaire's disease.

For a look at how the bad scenario plays out, I submit Earth 2100

Oh, I agree that it could be (and probably will be) pretty horrible.
The point that I'm making is that it's not a binary moment. The video describes various degrees of horror and pestilence. It's disngenous at the least to come into this with an attitude of "well we missed the deadline at 2012, or 2017, so there's no point of doing anything at all." Lucy's World demonstrates that no matter how bad the situation can get, we have the choice to make it worse, or better. What we need is the collective will.

I agree. No matter what happens, us doing nothing or not changing our ways will make things worse. We have to do something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, I wanted to say "Thank You!" to all the people posting on this thread. I have learned a lot and appreciate all the comments, even the ones that I might not agree with.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
In four years? In my dreams! But it is exactly what humanity will need to do anything like what the Paris Agreement dreamily outlines.

AND

Quark Blast wrote:

Did you read the Paris Agreement?

They expressly pushed out the "we will actually do something about AGW" to the year 2050! We need to do something now, (actually yesteryear, circa 2000), not 35 years from now.

The worst thing isn't that you made these mutually contradictory statements in the same post.

No, the worst thing is that they are BOTH blatantly false.

Ok, I'll bite. How are these contradictory?

That you also call them "blatantly false" and yet fail to elaborate is telling, no?

Liberty's Edge

< 4 != > 35


Oh, I see.

Well, if you read the Paris Agreement you will see that their plan only really takes traction in 35 years (now almost down to 34 years). That is way, way, way too late.

For conventional efforts at reversing/mitigating AGW (which is all humanity has in our bag-o-tricks at present), we should have started about 15 years ago.

And here's where the number 4 comes into this. It goes back to my point about nuclear fusion (yes, fusion). If we got that working and scaled to practical functionality in 4 years then we actually have a chance on implementing the dream outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Otherwise the year 2100 will look about the same with or without the Paris Agreement. Mainly it's the economics of coal and the increasing scarcity of oil that will force reduction in CO2 emissions. The Paris Agreement is irrelevant to how things will actually turn out.

And to repeat, that's why the whole mess is a tragedy. We think we are doing something with the Paris Agreement, when in fact we are doing next to nothing at all.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Well, if you read the Paris Agreement you will see that their plan only really takes traction in 35 years (now almost down to 34 years).

Again, completely false.

Major efforts at CO2 reductions under the Paris Agreement have already begun. They are happening NOW. The 35 years figure is when they plan to have completed the needed reductions.

Quote:
For conventional efforts at reversing/mitigating AGW (which is all humanity has in our bag-o-tricks at present), we should have started about 15 years ago.

We could have started 50 years ago when the problem first became clear... or 10 years from now. Later starting points just mean faster reductions are needed or worse warming will be caused.

In any case, many efforts DID start about 15 years ago. For example, total US CO2 emissions peaked in 2007. That wouldn't have happened if no efforts had been going on before that. US per capita emissions peaked all the way back in 1973... and, until recently, we've been one of the LEAST active countries in fighting climate change.

Quote:
And here's where the number 4 comes into this. It goes back to my point about nuclear fusion (yes, fusion). If we got that working and scaled to practical functionality in 4 years then we actually have a chance on implementing the dream outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Given that the 'dream' outlined in the Paris Agreement is already happening, we have a 'chance' of implementing it whether your magical four year nuclear fusion happens or not. Which is good... because, short of aliens arriving and showing us how to build the technology, there is no way that we will have viable commercial nuclear fusion power in the next 20 years.

Quote:
Otherwise the year 2100 will look about the same with or without the Paris Agreement. Mainly it's the economics of coal and the increasing scarcity of oil that will force reduction in CO2 emissions. The Paris Agreement is irrelevant to how things will actually turn out.

This is over-stated, but the one portion of your position which isn't completely false. The costs of wind power, solar power, and energy storage falling below those of coal and oil will indeed do most of the work... but the Paris Agreement has gotten the whole world working towards converting to those power sources BEFORE they have become the least expensive option everywhere. Thus, the Paris Agreement will help and things in 2100 will look a little better than they would have without it. Basically, because of the Paris Agreement unified global action on CO2 reduction began in 2015... rather than 2020 or 2025 when economic factors would have made it inevitable anyway.


Superintelligent aliens could hand us the design for a fusion reactor today and we still would not be able to get any sort of economically relevant fusion generation going in four years. If it pans out in forty years, great, but throwing a third of our resources at it today is taking away from some good options that are ready in search of perfect options that aren't.


Sharoth wrote:

Guys (and gals)! Can we at least agree that it doesn't matter what other events are occurring to affect the climate? It only matters what WE, the human race is doing to affect the climate and this world. That is the ONLY thing that we can really control. No matter what effect we are having, it is a negative affect. Cleaning up the mess and being responsible humans is all that matters.

Edit - All I want to know is what ideas do you all have to help make this world a better place? This is a beautiful world and I want to keep it beautiful.

There is definitely a period where only changing human activity will work. The problem is that we might be beyond that point. For example, there's a section of the Alaskan coast that is very quickly eroding, because it gets warm enough in the summer that the ground becomes unfrozen. This soil is very dense in trapped carbon and as it erodes, some of that carbon is being released into the ocean. As the Earth warms up, this process happens faster and faster and contributes more to the warming.

It's possible that at some point there will be processes contributing carbon into the oceans and atmosphere that will continue warming the planet even if human activity becomes 0 emissions.

If climate change gets bad enough, just reducing emissions may not be enough. We may have to undertake direct efforts to cool the planet. Of course, those efforts will have their own consequences, so we will have to decide if the risk of those consequences is worth it.


Irontruth wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Guys (and gals)! Can we at least agree that it doesn't matter what other events are occurring to affect the climate? It only matters what WE, the human race is doing to affect the climate and this world. That is the ONLY thing that we can really control. No matter what effect we are having, it is a negative affect. Cleaning up the mess and being responsible humans is all that matters.

Edit - All I want to know is what ideas do you all have to help make this world a better place? This is a beautiful world and I want to keep it beautiful.

There is definitely a period where only changing human activity will work. The problem is that we might be beyond that point.

Short of extinction, or collapse as a technological civilisation, we can NEVER be beyond the point where changing human activity can't make a difference. It's simply that the sooner we make that change, the less of the worse we wind up with. Otherwise there's never a point where simply folding our hands is a logical choice. If we all dissapeared today, Nature would undo most of our effects within a millenium.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well, if you read the Paris Agreement you will see that their plan only really takes traction in 35 years (now almost down to 34 years).

Again, completely false.

Major efforts at CO2 reductions under the Paris Agreement have already begun. They are happening NOW. The 35 years figure is when they plan to have completed the needed reductions.

Pretty vague claim you have there.

So name something now underway that wasn't already underway prior to last December and is a direct consequence of the Paris Agreement.

I'm not aware of anything, and that's not for lack of looking. You know, Internet and such makes for casting a wide net quite easy.

Here's what we have so far:
"The agreement will enter into force (and thus become fully effective) only if 55 countries which produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions ratify the Agreement"

According to this page, "As of 23 August 2016, there are 180 signatories to the Paris Agreement. Of these, 23 States have also deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions."

The accounting transparency is the only bite that the Paris Agreement has. And that only matters if at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are formally accounted for under the terms given.

After that, there is the help (and lots of it!) that the developing nations will need. And so far the help given amounts to nothing, and very little formally pledged.

As of mid-May we have something around $35 million pledged.

How far do you think that will go? How many billions did we just spend on the Rio Olympics? And we can only scratch together 35 million in promises plus an "intention" of a promise of a million or two more.

Not a good start.

And even when we do get 55+ countries (representing 55+% of total greenhouse gas emissions) committed, there is still the issue of what will be different under the agreement than without it. Without transparent compliance going forward, the agreement means very little.*

And just a couple of countries, say Russia or China or India or Brazil, can blow the "well below 2°C" goal right out if they don't play along. Just two of those countries not playing along or hiding their numbers will tank the whole effort.

And as I've been saying for post after post now, the goal is already forfeit. See these animated graphs from the Australian-German Climate and Energy College. The advantage of viewing the data like this is the dynamic nature of the problem is well illustrated. The momentum will sling us past the 1.5°C mark before we know it and past the 2°C mark with near certainty.

Paris Agreement or no Paris Agreement = same result.

* If you tell me it will have the force of international law I will point out that international law hasn't stopped much in this world short of a formal declaration of war. Notice how North Korea is playing nice because of the force of international law.


Here's another interesting article. While I'm a little sketchy about investors with holdings measured in the trillions telling governments how to act, I am at least pleased to see they have some common sense about them.
"They called for strong carbon pricing to be implemented, as well as regulations that encouraged energy efficiency and renewable energy. Plans for how to phase out fossil fuels also needed to be developed, they said.

I boldified the part that makes the best sense.

And FWIW, this type of climate modeling I find useful. There is no pretension of accuracy, just a quick and useful tool to help a researcher understand some potential atmospheric dynamics. This is not some multi-million dollar supercomputer with a program that runs for weeks to tell us "what climate will be like" to the 6th decimal place in 2040 or something equally absurd.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
So name something now underway that wasn't already underway prior to last December and is a direct consequence of the Paris Agreement.

December 2015 - Agreements from every country on Earth to work towards avoiding 2C warming

Since then - Action plans from 189 countries (covering 99.1% of CO2 emissions) spelling out their reduction targets
US actions since then - $500 million to help developing countries meet their targets, halt on coal mining leases on public lands, 43% of new electricity generation in first half of 2016 from renewables, new fuel efficiency requirements for freight trucks, new regulatory guidance and rules to aid solar development, further actions by states and individual cities, et cetera
China actions since then - For first half of 2016 solar up 28%, nuclear up 25%, wind up 15%, hydropower up 15%, and coal is declining (having peaked in 2014)

Summary of major global actions from Dec - Apr

Quote:

Here's what we have so far:

"The agreement will enter into force (and thus become fully effective) only if 55 countries which produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions ratify the Agreement"

According to this page, "As of 23 August 2016, there are 180 signatories to the Paris Agreement. Of these, 23 States have also deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 1.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions."

The accounting transparency is the only bite that the Paris Agreement has. And that only matters if at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are formally accounted for under the terms given.

Setting aside the fact, as demonstrated above, that major efforts are underway even without ratification of the agreement... there has been a somewhat significant update in the five days since the stats you quote;

Agreement will be fully ratified this year


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
So name something now underway that wasn't already underway prior to last December and is a direct consequence of the Paris Agreement.

December 2015 - Agreements from every country on Earth to work towards avoiding 2C warming

Since then - Action plans from 189 countries (covering 99.1% of CO2 emissions) spelling out their reduction targets
US actions since then - $500 million to help developing countries meet their targets, halt on coal mining leases on public lands, 43% of new electricity generation in first half of 2016 from renewables, new fuel efficiency requirements for freight trucks, new regulatory guidance and rules to aid solar development, further actions by states and individual cities, et cetera
China actions since then - For first half of 2016 solar up 28%, nuclear up 25%, wind up 15%, hydropower up 15%, and coal is declining (having peaked in 2014)

Summary of major global actions from Dec - Apr

Last thing first. I know the Paris Agreement will be ratified and thus have the force of "international law" but I seriously doubt that will make a difference. Pledging support and following up with consistent useful actions are two different animals.

And as far as the list of things that has happened since Paris Agreement was signed. Most of those were happening already. The few that weren't have yet to produce anything.

Taking just the $500 million from the USA to help developing nations. Pakistan alone could suck that well dry and see no significant improvements. Corruption is so bad in the developing world that they aren't likely to ever get out of the hole they're in before 2100.

As far as the developed world (Western Europe, USA, Canada, etc.), these measures, if not focused on efficiency but merely on CO2 emission reductions, will hit the lower and middle class disproportionately. Get ready for a few more countries to join Spain, Greece and Portugal with sustained double-digit unemployment, etc.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Sharoth wrote:

Guys (and gals)! Can we at least agree that it doesn't matter what other events are occurring to affect the climate? It only matters what WE, the human race is doing to affect the climate and this world. That is the ONLY thing that we can really control. No matter what effect we are having, it is a negative affect. Cleaning up the mess and being responsible humans is all that matters.

Edit - All I want to know is what ideas do you all have to help make this world a better place? This is a beautiful world and I want to keep it beautiful.

There is definitely a period where only changing human activity will work. The problem is that we might be beyond that point.
Short of extinction, or collapse as a technological civilisation, we can NEVER be beyond the point where changing human activity can't make a difference. It's simply that the sooner we make that change, the less of the worse we wind up with. Otherwise there's never a point where simply folding our hands is a logical choice. If we all dissapeared today, Nature would undo most of our effects within a millenium.

You're misreading what I wrote, or maybe you're unfamiliar with the concept of tipping points?

Simple example, you're pushing on a heavy object. If the object's center of gravity gets to a position where it can fall on it's own, it doesn't matter if you stop pushing, it's going to fall. To stop the object from falling, not only will you need to stop pushing, but you're going to have to counteract the objects own momentum to stop the fall.

Not everything has a tipping point, but a lot of large complicated processes do. We don't know for sure that climate change has a tipping point, we won't know for sure until a good 10-20 years after it happens. If we pass a tipping point we will have to still change human behavior, but we will ALSO have to start counteracting natural forces that are increasing global temperature.


The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Different tipping point.

Actual climate tipping points are what he's talking about. The climate shifting into a different stable mode where even stopping human carbon emissions and waiting centuries won't get us back to where we were.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Different tipping point.

Actual climate tipping points are what he's talking about. The climate shifting into a different stable mode where even stopping human carbon emissions and waiting centuries won't get us back to where we were.

There is no going back to where we were... not within our lifetimes, nor the lifetime of our grandchildren, processes are too long for that. The question is not recovering our past, but determining the shape of our future.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Okay, based on this we're having different conversations. I'll just stop, because this is pointless.


Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Okay, based on this we're having different conversations. I'll just stop, because this is pointless.

That essentially has been Quark's position all along. That since we're beyond the "tipping point" as he sees it, we should just all go back to our knitting.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Different tipping point.

Actual climate tipping points are what he's talking about. The climate shifting into a different stable mode where even stopping human carbon emissions and waiting centuries won't get us back to where we were.
There is no going back to where we were... not within our lifetimes, nor the lifetime of our grandchildren, processes are too long for that. The question is not recovering our past, but determining the shape of our future.

I meant the actual atmosphere, not out civilization. And not just "not in the lifetime of our grandchildren", but in long geological time.

That's the climate tipping point. Our additions changing things enough that the process is self-sustaining.


Drahliana keeps replying to me, but the replies make zero sense to me.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

The tipping point is Lucy's World, when a particular straw finally breaks the monkey's back. In that scenario, it was plague that broke out of control when the country and planets civilised infrastructure was already under excessive stress from the cumulative effects of climate change.

The tipping point is essentially when you get enough of a mass die-off that infrastructure that moves goods and services no longer functions, and Humanity's population takes a nose dive from it's 10 billion to a few million. At that point we're living in Mad Max's world, with very little possibility of us bootstraping back up, and the very heavy likelihood that we would lose our cumulative technological, social, and artistic legacies within a generation.

A few centuries after we've been knocked back to subsistence farming, the atmosphere should be cleaning itself out. But having exhausted all the easy to obtain fossil fuels, we would never recover our civilization again.

Okay, based on this we're having different conversations. I'll just stop, because this is pointless.
That essentially has been Quark's position all along. That since we're beyond the "tipping point" as he sees it, we should just all go back to our knitting.

Maybe, but I've really got no idea what Quark's position is. Though it seems to have a big dose of "Chaos! So we really can't know anything."


Well, it's worse than you understand (potentially). To say the same thing using the current parlance of the thread. Climate change may in fact go into a "tipping point" on the way back down from the anthropogenic C02 load.

From a climatological modeling POV, "tipping point" really ought to be called "shifting to another attractor basin in phase space." As I said much earlier in this thread, the shift into another attractor basin can happen with the driver (i.e. atmospheric C02 load) moving in either direction.

And Irontruth is right about my position but for the wrong reason. I'll ignore the fact that "we should just go back to our knitting" is an absurd portrayal of my position to point out that the C02 load is now being reduced (very marginally), and will continue at that or an even greater reduction, aside from anything to do with AGW mitigation or from the Paris Agreement.

Coal is just too expensive to utilize even in the relatively short term. Oil is mostly expended and it's already way to expensive to use at the gas-guzzling pace of late last century.

Even if all humans stopped adding C02 to the atmosphere from fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) right now, whatever will happen with global warming will take the next 100 years to work itself out.

And for the record thejeff, it's not that "we really can't know anything", but more the details cannot ever be known except waiting to find out. You just can't model climate like you can the orbit of Sol's eight planets + sundry asteroids and comets. There is way more chaos in the climate system than there is in the present solar system.

Knowing where mars will be in ten million years is easier to figure out than knowing what the hurricane season will be like in 2020.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Knowing where mars will be in ten million years is easier to figure out than knowing what the hurricane season will be like in 2020.

True... but a hurricane season is weather, not climate.

Modeling climate is vastly easier than modeling weather... though still not as easy as modeling gravity (e.g. planetary motion).


Ok. I want everyone who thinks that humans are having a negative impact on this world to raise their hands!

~raises my hand and then looks around~

Now that we have gotten THAT out of the way, let's try and find some solutions!


Quark Blast wrote:


And Irontruth is right about my position but for the wrong reason. I'll ignore the fact that "we should just go back to our knitting" is an absurd portrayal of my position to point out that the C02 load is now being reduced (very marginally), and will continue at that or an even greater reduction, aside from anything to do with AGW mitigation or from the Paris Agreement.

Your reading comprehension fails you. I didn't say that. Someone else said it.


Its a tough one regarding climate change. Anyone thats studied climate science knows that it is the most complicated inter-disciplinary subject going..... just so many inter related variables.

Ultimately human beings will NOT damage the planet in the long term. The planet has gone through mass extinction episodes where 95% of ALL life (including microbial) has vanished and still come back bigger and better!

Are humans beings making things crappy.... unquestionably.

Are human beings "damaging" the planet..... extremely unlikely


We're damaging the eco-systems that we rely on to live.


Irontruth wrote:
We're damaging the eco-systems that we rely on to live.

That's a bit dramatic. We have effects on the ecosystems we live. Like many things it's a mixed bag of benign and baneful. At the moment, it's a bit heavy on the baneful, but we are hardly unique in that aspect, just the most pervasive at the moment.


I believe that is the George Carlin stance.

The planet is fine. The people are {hooped.}


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Knowing where mars will be in ten million years is easier to figure out than knowing what the hurricane season will be like in 2020.

True... but a hurricane season is weather, not climate.

Modeling climate is vastly easier than modeling weather... though still not as easy as modeling gravity (e.g. planetary motion).

Maybe I should have said; knowing where mars will be in ten million years is easier to figure out than knowing what the hurricane season will be like over the next decade.

Climate is made up of some "average" of the weather. It's only easier when the attractor basin remains the same. Without that dubious assumption, modeling climate is harder than n-body planetary motion modeling.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
And Irontruth is right about my position but for the wrong reason. I'll ignore the fact that "we should just go back to our knitting" is an absurd portrayal of my position to point out that the C02 load is now being reduced (very marginally), and will continue at that or an even greater reduction, aside from anything to do with AGW mitigation or from the Paris Agreement.
Your reading comprehension fails you. I didn't say that. Someone else said it.

Certainly my attention wavered through the multiple-step shaded-quote attribution system here on these messageboards.

Happily my point remains the same! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Climate Talk From 2013
The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate
42:36 - 44:12 "There's something simple we're not getting"

Thank you Dr. David Archer! The most accessible presentation of how chaos affects climate modeling I have yet to see (that's not a bunch of technical minutia).

Another Climate Talk From 2013
The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change
23:30 - 23:53 "Sea level is rising near the maximum estimated by IPCC report"
46:25 - 46:35 "Energy efficiency improvements come at little to no cost and are easy to do"

Thank you Dr. Richard Somerville! Exactly what I've been saying all along. As per the title of the talk, he makes it clear that it's already time for mitigation maneuvers. Prevention of global climate change/AGW was only possible several years ago - some in the know would argue that time passed circa 1995.

He also highlights the "silver buckshot" that we can engage in now. The top 4 items on his graph all include the word efficiency; as in improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward.

*Yes, he also gives "Renewable Energy" and "Capturing and Storing CO2" as viable options but those two items, even with a generous reading of his chart, will only get us back to 1995 levels of CO2 emissions. So it's a start but a start that will be swallowed whole by China, India, and Russia over the next 5 years alone. To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

Its a tough one regarding climate change. Anyone thats studied climate science knows that it is the most complicated inter-disciplinary subject going..... just so many inter related variables.

Ultimately human beings will NOT damage the planet in the long term. The planet has gone through mass extinction episodes where 95% of ALL life (including microbial) has vanished and still come back bigger and better!

Are humans beings making things crappy.... unquestionably.

Are human beings "damaging" the planet..... extremely unlikely

Yeah but you are arguing semantics. Planet in the context of environmental concerns means biospheres and ecosystems. Which we are screwing over in ways not seen in millions of years. Yeah the planet will recover, but you nor your grandchildren will be around to see it.

I like animals. I like hiking in nature. I like the idea that when I die that at least some part of the natural world won't be destroyed.

And ultimately screwing over the ecosystems that support civilization will screw over society as we know it. Just ask the easter islanders.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
Prevention of global climate change/AGW was only possible several years ago - some in the know would argue that time passed circa 1995.

No matter how many times you repeat this it will continue to be an obviously false framing of the issue. There is no single 'line in the atmosphere' where it is 'too late' to prevent global warming.

Global warming driven by human CO2 emissions began shortly after the start of the industrial revolution and continues through today. Thus, the real question is how much global warming we will cause. Currently, we can possibly still prevent the total warming from hitting 2 C (the plausible window for avoiding 1.5 C has passed)... and even if we fail at that then 3 C, 4 C, et cetera can only be prevented by reducing emissions.

Quark Blast wrote:
He also highlights the "silver buckshot" that we can engage in now. The top 4 items on his graph all include the word efficiency; as in improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward.

You are grossly misrepresenting him. Indeed, in context, the "silver buckshot" comment directly contradicts your claim, "Taken together they can do a lot. There is no single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot."

How do you get from THAT to, "efficiency is our only constructive way forward"? It is literally the opposite of the point he was making.

Energy efficiency is indeed a way to reduce CO2 emissions at low cost, but there is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Efficiency improvements cannot stop global warming.

Indeed, [urll=https://nanoptics.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/b-smallen_presentation-to-u-of-u-optics-class_20121.pdf]the chart[/url] you are referring to (which was based on data from 2004) shows those four 'efficiency' wedges (less electrical generation, less non-electrical emissions, more fuel efficient cars, and more fuel efficient trucks & airplanes) combined being able to do little more than level off emissions at the current rate... and that's for the US, one of the least emissions efficient countries on the planet.

Renewable energy viability today is vastly different than it was in 2004. Solar costs have decreased ~90% over that period. Energy efficiency CANNOT stop global warming. Renewable energy and electrical storage CAN. We should absolutely still pursue energy efficiency because it will be easier to solve the problem if we do, but it is not and never will be a viable solution on its own.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Prevention of global climate change/AGW was only possible several years ago - some in the know would argue that time passed circa 1995.

No matter how many times you repeat this it will continue to be an obviously false framing of the issue. There is no single 'line in the atmosphere' where it is 'too late' to prevent global warming.

Global warming driven by human CO2 emissions began shortly after the start of the industrial revolution and continues through today. Thus, the real question is how much global warming we will cause. Currently, we can possibly still prevent the total warming from hitting 2 C (the plausible window for avoiding 1.5 C has passed)... and even if we fail at that then 3 C, 4 C, et cetera can only be prevented by reducing emissions.

We have well missed the 2°C warming window. We are on the cusp of missing the 3°C warming window and making it will depend largely on China, India, Russia and maybe Brazil (they are totally in the toilet now so who knows when they will recover enough to seriously industrialize) over the next half decade or so.

And I say this ignoring lots of crazy things that could but almost certainly won't happen - like the EU collapsing under it's own weight and having significant negative energy growth.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
He also highlights the "silver buckshot" that we can engage in now. The top 4 items on his graph all include the word efficiency; as in improving efficiency is our only* constructive way forward.

You are grossly misrepresenting him. Indeed, in context, the "silver buckshot" comment directly contradicts your claim, "Taken together they can do a lot. There is no single silver bullet, but there's a lot of silver buckshot."

How do you get from THAT to, "efficiency is our only constructive way forward"? It is literally the opposite of the point he was making.

The part with the * that you failed (yet again and on purpose?) to read and/or quote back. Why do you do that? Leave out key points from my post? It has to be on purpose. Nobody on these boards is that illiterate.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Energy efficiency is indeed a way to reduce CO2 emissions at low cost, but there is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Efficiency improvements cannot stop global warming.

Indeed, the chart you are referring to (which was based on data from 2004) shows those four 'efficiency' wedges (less electrical generation, less non-electrical emissions, more fuel efficient cars, and more fuel efficient trucks & airplanes) combined being able to do little more than level off emissions at the current rate... and that's for the US, one of the least emissions efficient countries on the planet.

Renewable energy viability today is vastly different than it was in 2004. Solar costs have decreased ~90% over that period. Energy efficiency CANNOT stop global warming. Renewable energy and electrical storage CAN. We should absolutely still pursue energy efficiency because it will be easier to solve the problem if we do, but it is not and never will be a viable solution on its own.

As you say, energy efficiency can do "a little more than level off emissions at the current rate".

Compare that to renewable energy that can't even do that. Renewable energy is an insufficient start. With efficiency improvement alone we can at least hold our own.

The chart might be using real data compiled circa 2004 but I'm looking to the right of that year, and when you do that you see that renewables are not even treading water alone. Whereas efficiency will do slightly more than tread water, and in fact likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.

My main point then is that energy efficiency is the bulk of the solution.

BTW - Solar is not 90% cheaper over the last 12 years. Large capacity batteries are not 90% better when you factor in total cost (including subsidies) and maintenance. Neither is wind. Someday they may get there but if we don't tackle efficiency first we'll be looking at +4°C warming before renewables get us ahead of simply using natural gas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Throwing up our hands because we can't stop SOME warning so we might as well do nothing is like a patient refusing the amputation of a gangrenous foot, because if he has to lose the foot he might as well lose the whole leg.

Liberty's Edge

Quark Blast wrote:
The part with the * that you failed (yet again and on purpose?) to read and/or quote back. Why do you do that? Leave out key points from my post? It has to be on purpose. Nobody on these boards is that illiterate.

I quote the portions of the post I am responding to. Nothing in that asterisked text would 'undo' your false claim that we should/can focus on efficiency to stop global warming. Indeed, you repeated it there with; "To make a difference, a real difference, the operative word is EFFICIENCY."

Quote:

As you say, energy efficiency can do "a little more than level off emissions at the current rate".

Compare that to renewable energy that can't even do that. Renewable energy is an insufficient start. With efficiency improvement alone we can at least hold our own.

This simply isn't true. Renewable energy can, and almost certainly will, completely replace our current fossil fuel driven electrical generation within a few decades. Very likely personal transportation will also shift to clean electrical power in that time frame. Between them that is the vast majority of our carbon emissions. The CO2 reduction potential of renewable energy is vastly greater than that from energy efficiency. Just holding steady at current emissions or reducing them slightly, which is the best that could possibly be hoped for from efficiency improvements (and wildly implausible IMO), would not stop global warming. It is an inadequate response to the problem. Something worth pursuing, but only in that it makes the overall transition to clean renewable power easier.

Quote:
The chart might be using real data compiled circa 2004 but I'm looking to the right of that year, and when you do that you see that renewables are not even treading water alone.

Renewable energy data from 2004 might as well be fiction by today's standards. Basically, that chart is completely out of date / inaccurate.

Quote:
Whereas efficiency will do slightly more than tread water, and in fact likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.

You said earlier that it was already too late to avoid 2 C warming. Setting aside that only the highest end projections show that... if we accept it as true then no, neither efficiency nor anything else is going to get us back to sub 2 C warming any time soon. Once the atmospheric CO2 level gets high enough to cause a certain amount of warming it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to reverse... that was the entire point of the "The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate" link YOU posted.

Quote:
My main point then is that energy efficiency is the bulk of the solution.

Yes, I know.

My main point is that your main point is completely false. Holding steady at current emissions, or even reducing them slightly over time - which is the best that efficiency improvements could possibly do, would allow global warming to continue. We need to get down below 50% of current emissions to stop global warming and then near 0% to allow it to start slowly revering itself over the next 100,000 years or so (longer if we get up over 3 C warming).

Quote:
BTW - Solar is not 90% cheaper over the last 12 years.

History of solar cell costs;

1975 - $101.05 per watt
1977 - $76.67 per watt
2004 - $3.20 per watt
2013 - $0.74 per watt
2016 - $0.26 per watt

Quote:
Large capacity batteries are not 90% better when you factor in total cost (including subsidies) and maintenance. Neither is wind.

I only said solar was down 90% in that time period. Wind has been declining sharply for decades, and is now the cheapest form of electrical generation in many parts of the world, but not by 90% over the past 12 years. Battery storage has just begun to drop sharply in the last five years or so... I would not be surprised if the total reduction after another seven years was in the 90% range.

Quote:
Someday they may get there but if we don't tackle efficiency first we'll be looking at +4°C warming before renewables get us ahead of simply using natural gas.

Renewables are already replacing natural gas. In 2016 the US has put more new renewable energy online than natural gas... and natural gas is LESS competitive worldwide. We could make every efficiency improvement conceivable and we'd still hit 4 C warming ~2150 if we don't transition to renewable energy or some other solution that can actually eliminate most of our CO2 emissions.


MMCJawa wrote:


Yeah but you are arguing semantics. Planet in the context of environmental concerns means biospheres and ecosystems. Which we are screwing over in ways not seen in millions of years. Yeah the planet will recover, but you nor your grandchildren will be around to see it.

I like animals. I like hiking in nature. I like the idea that when I die that at least some part of the natural world won't be destroyed.

And ultimately screwing over the ecosystems that support civilization will screw over society as we know it. Just ask the easter islanders.

Not really...I am playing devils advocate actually

For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to argue as a Darwinist that through evolution, humans have risen to the top of the tree and ergo any acts that we commit are an entirely natural expression of our evolutionary pathway.

Nature excels at creating balance through fair means or foul.... humans will either kill a significant portion of ourselves off in the next world war (our desire for war and conflict being a clear part of our DNA) and thus mitigate our potential for environmental damage, or learn to be responsible with how we go about our business and mitigate things that way.

Either way... humans WILL NOT damage the planet in the mid-long term.

And FYI.. I am very much pro being eco-friendly where possible!


Your logical fallacy is appeal to nature...

Liberty's Edge

doc roc wrote:
Either way... humans WILL NOT damage the planet in the mid-long term.

We will not do significant physical damage to the large rock on which we live.

The other life forms that live on that rock with us are a different story. We have already triggered the sixth global mass extinction and there are several vectors (e.g. global warming, other pollution, over-fishing, deforestation, et cetera) by which we could end up wiping out most of the currently existing species.

Thus, when it comes to "nature" and the "environment" we've already done damage "in the mid-long term" and have a very good chance of making that damage the worst in the planet's history.


CBDunkerson wrote:
doc roc wrote:
Either way... humans WILL NOT damage the planet in the mid-long term.

We will not do significant physical damage to the large rock on which we live.

The other life forms that live on that rock with us are a different story. We have already triggered the sixth global mass extinction and there are several vectors (e.g. global warming, other pollution, over-fishing, deforestation, et cetera) by which we could end up wiping out most of the currently existing species.

Thus, when it comes to "nature" and the "environment" we've already done damage "in the mid-long term" and have a very good chance of making that damage the worst in the planet's history.

We have a pretty high bar to set to match the Ordovocian extinction rate of 92 percent.


Quote:

History of solar cell costs;

1975 - $101.05 per watt
1977 - $76.67 per watt
2004 - $3.20 per watt
2013 - $0.74 per watt
2016 - $0.26 per watt

Yep, solar cells are now so cheap that they are only a small part of the cost of an installed system, so any future decreases won't save all that much. The costs of the frame, wiring, DC-to-AC converters, etc., are not decreasing nearly that fast.

The cost for a complete working system is more like $3 to $4 per watt in 2016.

Showing the cost decline for the cells only is rather misleading, and is exactly the kind of thing that might make a skeptic think that greens either don't know what they are talking about or are running a scam.


whew wrote:
Quote:

History of solar cell costs;

1975 - $101.05 per watt
1977 - $76.67 per watt
2004 - $3.20 per watt
2013 - $0.74 per watt
2016 - $0.26 per watt

Yep, solar cells are now so cheap that they are only a small part of the cost of an installed system, so any future decreases won't save all that much. The costs of the frame, wiring, DC-to-AC converters, etc., are not decreasing nearly that fast.

The cost for a complete working system is more like $3 to $4 per watt in 2016.

Showing the cost decline for the cells only is rather misleading, and is exactly the kind of thing that might make a skeptic think that greens either don't know what they are talking about or are running a scam.

Your link is about individual home installations. While relevant, they are not the same as the sort of large-scale power generation facility that is needed to replace something like a coal-powered plant - which was the topic under discussion, macro-level transition to renewables.

I suspect, but don't know, that cell costs are more relevant to the large-scale installations due to economies of scale, whereas the "overhead" costs such as wiring are more relevant at the micro scale.

Liberty's Edge

whew wrote:

Yep, solar cells are now so cheap that they are only a small part of the cost of an installed system, so any future decreases won't save all that much. The costs of the frame, wiring, DC-to-AC converters, etc., are not decreasing nearly that fast.

The cost for a complete working system is more like $3 to $4 per watt in 2016.

That's only in the United States. Installed residential system costs in Germany, Australia, and most other countries are about half that... and as Coriat notes, utility scale costs are also lower.

Installed utility and residential solar in the U.S. may 'only' be down ~80% (e.g. utility scale from $8 to $1.50) over the same time period (2004 to 2016), but in countries with a friendlier regulatory framework they've seen the same ~90% decline as the base module prices.

Quote:
Showing the cost decline for the cells only is rather misleading, and is exactly the kind of thing that might make a skeptic think that greens either don't know what they are talking about or are running a scam.

Really?

So, given that installed costs have experienced similar declines, that would mean we must conclude that either you don't know what you are talking about or are running a scam. Right?


I'll respond to one small portion of a prior reply.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Whereas efficiency will do slightly more than tread water, and in fact likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.
You said earlier that it was already too late to avoid 2 C warming.

See, here's one relatively simple example where the reading-for-comprehension fails.

It is too late to avoid the 2°C warming.

What I said was, focusing on efficiency, will likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.

Do you see the difference?

In the wrong case you are accusing me of self-contradiction.

In the real case, which you misread (on purpose?), I say that, efficiency in energy use will get us back to emission levels that are below the 2°C warming level.

Perhaps I should have said "emission rates" instead of emission levels? No matter. Still renewables won't even touch that without a corresponding lowering of our average standard of living. Disproportionately borne out by the lives of the poor (in the West and elsewhere), of course.


As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.


Quark Blast wrote:

I'll respond to one small portion of a prior reply.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Whereas efficiency will do slightly more than tread water, and in fact likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.
You said earlier that it was already too late to avoid 2 C warming.

See, here's one relatively simple example where the reading-for-comprehension fails.

It is too late to avoid the 2°C warming.

What I said was, focusing on efficiency, will likely get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels.

Do you see the difference?

In the wrong case you are accusing me of self-contradiction.

In the real case, which you misread (on purpose?), I say that, efficiency in energy use will get us back to emission levels that are below the 2°C warming level.

Perhaps I should have said "emission rates" instead of emission levels? No matter. Still renewables won't even touch that without a corresponding lowering of our average standard of living. Disproportionately borne out by the lives of the poor (in the West and elsewhere), of course.

What does "emission levels that are below the 2°C warming level" mean if it isn't total emissions? If we've already put out enough to hit 2°C, there's no level of emissions that get us back below it in any time frame less than centuries. 0 emissions wouldn't do it.

Barring finding some way to scrub serious amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, we'll hit the 2°C of warming. That's what "too late" means. Given that, I've got no idea what "get us back to sub-2°C warming CO2 emission levels" means.

1,501 to 1,550 of 5,074 << first < prev | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards