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


Off-Topic Discussions

3,451 to 3,500 of 3,500 << first < prev | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's really funny how QB claims everyone misunderstands him, while he's blatantly misreading their posts.
No, I understand their posts (for the most part), but their posts misrepresent what I'm saying in my posts (for the most part).
That's what you would say if you didn't understand them, but thought you did.

:D

You know that works both ways?

As it happens I have at least one dispassionate observer who agrees that I'm mostly clear in my arguments and (more importantly) that I regularly get misrepresented by CB and other unnamed participants in this thread.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Roughly half of humanity needs to be vegetarian by 2050.
Like your climate change 'predictions', this is only true if we make the, absolutely ridiculous, assumption that there will be no significant changes in the next 30 years.

Oh there will be changes. Another couple billion people for one. With 2.5 to 4.5 billion others trying to have something like a Western middle-class lifestyle.

All those things you say about meat production becoming less impactful/kcal will certainly be true to some small degree. But that plus wind power and EVs won't make up for the GHG increases.

People, especially people connected to the Internet and all the glories revealed therein, will want stuff and not really give a #### about the long term consequences. Metro smog sucks today. Right now even. A +3.0°C year 2100 doesn't register as a concern for most people, and of the ones it does register with, well most of them will shave off a fraction of what they actually need to do their part.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Basically, you are advancing a Malthusian world view. Joining a storied tradition of being continuously wrong for two centuries and counting.

That's what you think.

If I were advancing mere Malthus-like ideas I'd be posting worries about the 20 billion people alive in the year 2100, the total lack of forest cover by then so all those people could eat with disposable chopsticks, and how another 80 years of fracking will make our atmosphere 0.01% methane.

Henny-Penny: The Sky is Falling!

But no. I've done nothing like that and it's a little sad you can't see the facts. Sucks to be you!


pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
...Still mostly glad that I'll be dead before things REALLY hit the fan, though.

There's still hope! We might have a nuclear war before then.

:D
I'm holding out for The Zombie Apocalypse, myself

I'd honestly prefer a regular divinely inspired one. Then I could use my holy avenger more.

Silver Crusade

Thomas Seitz wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
...Still mostly glad that I'll be dead before things REALLY hit the fan, though.

There's still hope! We might have a nuclear war before then.

:D
I'm holding out for The Zombie Apocalypse, myself
I'd honestly prefer a regular divinely inspired one. Then I could use my holy avenger more.

Well, pretty much all versions of the Zombie Apocalypse are pretty darn magical in nature. Divinely inspired is as good a justification as any.


Yeah but I don't think my holy avenger wants to fight undead. At least it grumbles each time I tell it "You need to keep guard on my closet because the Demi-plane of Dread keeps seeping in there..."

Silver Crusade

Thomas Seitz wrote:
Yeah but I don't think my holy avenger wants to fight undead. At least it grumbles each time I tell it "You need to keep guard on my closet because the Demi-plane of Dread keeps seeping in there..."

I think you need a sword of bane dust bunnies of DOOM for the closet. At least, that is what I need for MY closet


Nah. Dust bunnies and any other dust is acceptable since it keeps the moths out.


Firms make green energy vows as call for action grow

Are they simply making good press? Or good investments now that it likely pays to invest in these? Both?

Better question: Why didn't they do this 10 years ago?

Looking at the climate marches/walkouts around the world and I see a bunch of very rich (by global standards) people demanding stuff they are unwilling to pay for when it comes to it (BTW - If you're a vegan pedestrian, dressed in fair-trade clothing, who's never darkened the doorway of Starbucks, then I'm not talking to you). It'll take some real momentum to turn this "global" protest into useful action. Here's hoping my cynicism is proven wrong this time. Finally.


QB,

I dunno about being wrong about cynicism, but I figure eventually something has to be done. Maybe.

I'm still betting on a stargate myself...


An interesting thought.

Inspired by a brief return of a specific goblin...

a musical interlude.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Firms make green energy vows as call for action grow

Are they simply making good press? Or good investments now that it likely pays to invest in these? Both?

Better question: Why didn't they do this 10 years ago?

Because they wouldn't have made money on it 10 years ago.

I've told you before... only greed can save us now.

I have faith in human greed.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Firms make green energy vows as call for action grow

Are they simply making good press? Or good investments now that it likely pays to invest in these? Both?

Better question: Why didn't they do this 10 years ago?

Because they wouldn't have made money on it 10 years ago.

I've told you before... only greed can save us now.

I have faith in human greed.

You mean by creating another global economic bubble and the collapse thereof will reduce GHG emissions and keep us below a +2.5°C year 2100?

I can buy into that.

Taking a big gamble on the collapse of the global economy though. Right now CO2, CH4 and N2O are still in their respective upwards trends and the CH4 levels are at unprecedented concentration levels. Which means we are giving the RCP 8.5 scenario a serious run right now. If the collapse holds off another 5 years or so we'll need a 20 year economic depression to set things "right". Yep... a BIG gamble.


Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Firms make green energy vows as call for action grow

Are they simply making good press? Or good investments now that it likely pays to invest in these? Both?

Better question: Why didn't they do this 10 years ago?

Because they wouldn't have made money on it 10 years ago.

I've told you before... only greed can save us now.

I have faith in human greed.

You mean by creating another global economic bubble and the collapse thereof will reduce GHG emissions and keep us below a +2.5°C year 2100?

Just to keep focusing on the misunderstanding/misrepresentation thing: You know that's not really what he meant, right?


So while I think QB might be right, based on what I heard on the BBC and of course Greta Thunberg's lovely if very scathing speech to the UN...I feel hearten by the fact that little lady can have a Death Stare that even a Basilisk would envy.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Firms make green energy vows as call for action grow

Are they simply making good press? Or good investments now that it likely pays to invest in these? Both?

Better question: Why didn't they do this 10 years ago?

Because they wouldn't have made money on it 10 years ago.

I've told you before... only greed can save us now.

I have faith in human greed.

You mean by creating another global economic bubble and the collapse thereof will reduce GHG emissions and keep us below a +2.5°C year 2100?

Just to keep focusing on the misunderstanding/misrepresentation thing: You know that's not really what he meant, right?

Oops! Yeah, forgot the </sarcasm> at the end of my post.

Good call, thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
So while I think QB might be right, based on what I heard on the BBC and of course Greta Thunberg's lovely if very scathing speech to the UN...I feel hearten by the fact that little lady can have a Death Stare that even a Basilisk would envy.

Greta Thunberg to world leaders: 'How dare you'...

So up thread I was mentioning that there is a line to walk. Be too doomsday about AGW and turn people off. Be too hopeful and risk being a force multiplier for humanity's natural penchant for procrastination.

Clearly Greta is not afraid of my speculative thought on the risks of taking a doomsday position to spur action.

:D


Greta is truly a one woman climate crisis fighter. with mythic tiers.

Also with a death stare.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Greta is truly a one woman climate crisis fighter. with mythic tiers.

Also with a death stare.

Obviously she needs to level up to become more effective. Her stare, while impressive, failed to nudge the Fr PM beyond mere condescension or the US Pres from sarcastic Tweet, and the Gr Chancellor seemed to use her as a photo-op.

Maybe for her swim back to Sweden she'll hit a milestone and can take Finger Waggle of Shame to improve her effectiveness.


UN panel signals red alert on 'Blue Planet'

BBC wrote:

...[T]he loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet in the years between 2007 and 2016 tripled compared to the 10 years previously.

Greenland saw a doubling of mass loss over the same period. The report expects this to continue throughout the 21st Century and beyond.

...

"Extreme sea level events that are historically rare (once per century in the recent past) are projected to occur frequently (at least once per year) at many locations by 2050," the study says, even if future emissions of carbon are cut significantly.

...

The ways in which you may be affected are vast - flood damage could increase by two or three orders of magnitude.

The acidification of the oceans, thanks to increased levels of CO2, is threatening corals to such an extent that even at 1.5C of warming some 90% will disappear.

...

The formula is well worn at this stage - deep, rapid cuts in carbon emissions in line with the IPCC report last year that required 45% reductions by 2030.

"If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable," said Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC.

Big if there MR. Lee.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are at record amounts since the advent of humanity, and CH4 levels are unprecedented in Earth history while it has had anything like our present atmosphere.


I still stand by Greta because while it's not always about the death stares, it's ones like that made my day.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I spent most of today at Toronto's Climate Strike. Us old farts were invited this time :-).

I'm a long, long, long way from optimistic but an event like this makes me just a little bit less pessimistic.

If (and it's a HUGE if) young people actually get off their arses and vote in our upcoming (Oct) election it could make a HUGE difference. Like most countries our election turnout, especially amongst the young, tends to suck and most races are actually fairly close. Young people turning out in huge numbers could, theoretically, make quite the difference.

Of course, likely nothing will change. But, maybe, just maybe the Green or NDP parties will make inroads ( NDP is our left wing party). Not enough to actually win, but enough to have SOME influence on the agenda


Nothing is going to change until it does.

It sounds kinda dumb/obvious, but it's the way things are. Especially when peering into the future.

Whatever the outcome of the last few years, plus the next 10... is... it won't be obvious what it means for another 30-40 years. Partly that is due to the nature and scale of this problem, but it's also just hard to recognize the trends of history as they are happening.

I've been listening to some podcasts that delve into campaign polls for the US, and right now there is a dramatic shift in how important climate change is considered. It used to be like 15th or lower, and now it is many people's 2nd or 3rd most important issue. Another way to measure it's prominence is that in the 2016 Democratic primaries climate change was a topic in the debates for literally 2 questions. This cycle it's already gotten about 20 minutes of time in the debates, plus the 7 hour townhall of candidates individually. This is a massive shift in how important the issue is in American politics.

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
Whatever the outcome of the last few years, plus the next 10... is... it won't be obvious what it means for another 30-40 years.

I mostly agree with you but I don't think that you're right with that 30-40 years.

I think in this case that we will know within a decade (and perhaps in significantly less time) whether or not there is actually enough political will to make the hard and major systemic changes that are required (absent miracle tech) if we're to stay below 2C (Unfortunately, I agree with QB that we've already realistically missed any chance at staying below 1.5C). And to stop the massive OTHER environmental issues that are NOT directly linked to Global Warming. Basically, the current movement grows and expands and changes the way we think or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then we're screwed. This really IS our last chance to voluntarily change

If you mean that it will take 30-40 years to determine whether those changes we DO make were actually sufficient to accomplish what we wanted then you're partly right. We'll know in less time than that if we've failed, but I agree it will take that long to know that we've succeeded

Basically, I'm HOPING that in 30-40 years we still won't know :-). That means we won't yet have failed and that is the best result possible right now :-(.


pauljathome wrote:
...I think in this case that we will know within a decade (and perhaps in significantly less time) whether or not there is actually enough political will to make the hard and major systemic changes that are required (absent miracle tech) if we're to stay below 2C (Unfortunately, I agree with QB that we've already realistically missed any chance at staying below 1.5C).

There have been mostly pedantic and irrelevant objections to the following argument but I still think it's correct:

I believe uncontroversially that right now, under present atmospheric conditions, the globe is up about 1.0°C over the preindustrial mean.

All this effort at going green is going to result in very few atmospheric particulates and other compounds getting into the atmosphere from the transportation sector. That cleanup will add right at 0.5°C to the current overage.

If somehow the air transportation sector is also cleaned up, that will add another 0.5°C.

The slug of CH4, while having "only" a 100 year residence time in the atmosphere, is currently about 2.5x higher concentration than it has ever been for Earth's atmosphere over the last few hundred million years. Depending on who you listen to, CH4 is about 30x more powerful as a GHG than the dreaded CO2. That punch, that slug of methane, is not well modeled in what it will do to the global climate but it won't be good news.

Further, the Yellow Vest protests were a 'canary in the coal mine'. All politics aside (and I mean that - not talking politics here), there will be a metric #### ton of push-back from the middle and near middle classes worldwide with the carbon taxes that will realistically be needed to make the transition to renewables anytime before 2030. Nothing like saying #### ###! to about 4 billion people in hopes of furthering your goal. </sarcasm>

We will be fortunate if the year 2100 is only up 2.5°C.

pauljathome wrote:
And to stop the massive OTHER environmental issues that are NOT directly linked to Global Warming. Basically, the current movement grows and expands and changes the way we think or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then we're screwed. This really IS our last chance to voluntarily change...

We will be voluntold at some point. Whether that point is soon enough to be useful is yet to be determined.

pauljathome wrote:
...Basically, I'm HOPING that in 30-40 years we still won't know :-). That means we won't yet have failed and that is the best result possible right now :-(.

We will know by 2030. By then enough data will be in and modeled on supercomputers at least 1000x the speed of our current crop. There will still be uncertainty but by 2030 the year 2100 average global temperature "floor" increase will be well established.


Quark Blast wrote:


Further, the Yellow Vest protests were a 'canary in the coal mine'. All politics aside (and I mean that - not talking politics here), there will be a metric #### ton of push-back from the middle and near middle classes worldwide with the carbon taxes that will realistically be needed to make the transition to renewables anytime before 2030. Nothing like saying #### ###! to about 4 billion people in hopes of furthering your goal. </sarcasm>
.

Except that this is how you WANT to interpret it, and your opinion on the matter isn't supported by anything. Its not even supported by claims/demands from the those participating in the yellow vest protests, in fact, some of their demands directly contradict you. You ignore huge aspects of what happened, and then you get mad when others don't take you seriously on your opinion of it.


All I know is Greta Thunberg's death stare needs to be world wide gif/meme for all times.


Quark Blast wrote:
5) If people were really worried about the climate they would invest in nuclear power. Current designs are as fail-safe as is humanly possible and if you're worried about site security, build them inside military bases.

About 50% of my day to day work these days is nuclear power related, though I'm really just a layman more educated than average about the specific topic.

That's enough to know that new nuclear power in the USA is more expensive than renewables a lot of the time (though sometimes a project's specific economics cut the other way, and there's always subsidies). I'm pretty sure I posted upthread somewhere about VC Summer abandoning nine billion dollars worth of completed work because it had become so uneconomical to finish.

Second part. Building nuclear power plants inside military bases is a really truly terrible idea that will both drive costs up and site security down.

Military bases also have not been sited with the concerns of nuclear power plants (cooling, seismic hazard, etc.) in mind.

Yellowdingo-level bad idea here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
I believe uncontroversially that right now, under present atmospheric conditions, the globe is up about 1.0°C over the preindustrial mean.

Depends on which 'preindustrial baseline' you use. If you accept proxy temperature records then we're already close to 1.5°C. For 1°C you'd have to allow very incomplete thermometer records back to ~1850. More often you'll hear that we are currently ~0.85°C over pre-industrial.

That being said, the 'warming targets' that are usually cited are based on the more conservative (i.e. lower) current warming values.

Quark Blast wrote:
The slug of CH4, while having "only" a 100 year residence time in the atmosphere

Methane's atmospheric residence time is about nine years. Nowhere near 100.

In any case, methane, particulate pollution, and various other factors you bring up as 'extras' are very simple to estimate and have been included in climate models for decades.

Quark Blast wrote:
Further, the Yellow Vest protests were a 'canary in the coal mine'. All politics aside (and I mean that - not talking politics here), there will be a metric #### ton of push-back from the middle and near middle classes worldwide with the carbon taxes that will realistically be needed to make the transition to renewables anytime before 2030.

If carbon taxes (which... haven't you been insisting are wonderful and absolutely certain to succeed?) were targeted at the middle class then yes that would be a fiasco and go nowhere.

The best way to get people to buy into a carbon tax would be to make it revenue neutral... that is everyone pays a tax based on the amount of carbon they emit and all the money generated by that tax is then divided by the number of taxpayers and the resulting amount returned to each. In practice it would probably be simplified so that only emitters above a certain level have to pay and only those below that level receive checks. That would basically result in nearly all individual taxpayers having more money. Which is appropriate since they are hit by the environmental and health impacts of the pollution put out by the highest emitters.


CBDunkerson wrote:
The best way to get people to buy into a carbon tax would be to make it revenue neutral... that is everyone pays a tax based on the amount of carbon they emit and all the money generated by that tax is then divided by the number of taxpayers and the resulting amount returned to each. In practice it would probably be simplified so that only emitters above a certain level have to pay and only those below that level receive checks. That would basically result in nearly all individual taxpayers having more money. Which is appropriate since they are hit by the environmental and health impacts of the pollution put out by the highest emitters.

The simplest way would be to basically treat it as a sales tax - everyone pays when they buy energy. Which in the case of businesses would then be passed on to consumers, but would still provide an incentive to use renewable energy, since that would all you to charge lower prices/collect more profit.

Trying to draw lines for "emitters above a certain level" gets awkward and intrusive. It also feels less like a rebate and more like a giveaway if most people aren't paying the tax directly and that makes the rebate part more vulnerable.

Also, that approach lowers the incentive for people below the "highest emitter" line to switch - they won't be taxed less and they'll still get the same rebate.


thejeff wrote:

Trying to draw lines for "emitters above a certain level" gets awkward and intrusive. It also feels less like a rebate and more like a giveaway if most people aren't paying the tax directly and that makes the rebate part more vulnerable.

Countries around the world have successfully implemented progressive taxes for lots of things, so your initial opposition to this immediately falls flat to me.

I might agree that a certain method of implementation of a progressive tax might be a failure, but a blanket statement that progressive taxes can't work is patently ridiculous.


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Trying to draw lines for "emitters above a certain level" gets awkward and intrusive. It also feels less like a rebate and more like a giveaway if most people aren't paying the tax directly and that makes the rebate part more vulnerable.

Countries around the world have successfully implemented progressive taxes for lots of things, so your initial opposition to this immediately falls flat to me.

I might agree that a certain method of implementation of a progressive tax might be a failure, but a blanket statement that progressive taxes can't work is patently ridiculous.

Good thing that's not what I said. (Or at least what I meant.)

Two main reasons, I think the approach fails here:
First is more technical: You'd need to directly track everyone's carbon emissions, so you'd know when they went over the limit. That's intrusive. It's simpler and less intrusive to just treat it as a tax on the production. Passed on to consumers when they buy energy (as well as when they buy things made using that energy.)

The second is that the rebate mechanism is already progressive: You pay according to use, but get a flat amount back. Making it doubly progressive - don't pay and get money back makes it seem less acceptable, I think.

This isn't a normal progressive tax. It's designed to modify behavior - reduce carbon use. Raising the price of carbon to the consumer is part of that.

Plus, I started by addressing CB's thought that the exemption would be the simpler approach, while I think the sales tax model would be even simpler.


I think the first step should actually just be to stop giving oil and gas companies subsidies. They still get about $14b federally, and another $5b at the state level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Two main reasons, I think the approach fails here:

I should perhaps have pointed out that I was describing a system which has already worked... see British Columbia and Switzerland for examples.

thejeff wrote:
Plus, I started by addressing CB's thought that the exemption would be the simpler approach, while I think the sales tax model would be even simpler.

Maybe. I'm not sure if either has been tried. The existing examples actually use the 'intrusive' method of tracking carbon usage for everyone and then increasing/reducing income or other tax burdens by the net of the carbon tax due and returned. However, those have both been in effect for more than a decade and in countries with relatively small / simple tax procedures. Thus, I'd expect a more world-wide implementation to look for ways to simplify the process.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Two main reasons, I think the approach fails here:

I should perhaps have pointed out that I was describing a system which has already worked... see British Columbia and Switzerland for examples.

thejeff wrote:
Plus, I started by addressing CB's thought that the exemption would be the simpler approach, while I think the sales tax model would be even simpler.
Maybe. I'm not sure if either has been tried. The existing examples actually use the 'intrusive' method of tracking carbon usage for everyone and then increasing/reducing income or other tax burdens by the net of the carbon tax due and returned. However, those have both been in effect for more than a decade and in countries with relatively small / simple tax procedures. Thus, I'd expect a more world-wide implementation to look for ways to simplify the process.

As far as I can tell the British Colombia model is what I'm talking about. Switzerland might be, at least on the individual level.

You pay the tax on each gallon of fuel you buy (or equivalent) when you pay for it, rather than keeping detailed records of all the carbon based energy you use throughout the year and sending the government a check at the end. I couldn't find any mention of exemptions for low emitters.
In Switzerland, even high emitting companies get rebates, though the form is more complicated than a simple check and they'd be dwarfed by the cost of the taxes.

Perhaps we're just misunderstanding?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The slug of CH4, while having "only" a 100 year residence time in the atmosphere

Methane's atmospheric residence time is about nine years. Nowhere near 100.

In any case, methane, particulate pollution, and various other factors you bring up as 'extras' are very simple to estimate and have been included in climate models for decades.

First, the slug of methane we're throwing into the atmosphere today is a long throw. A half century throw at least. I'll round it up to 100 years before it all gets spewed out. And this isn't considering ocean floor deposits.

And yes, they've been included in some climate models to varying degrees with variable assumptions about rate and interaction. The problem is the IPCC estimates are based on mashing the results of 30+ climate models together.

So the models that do well at telling us what CH4 is likely to do get dumbed-down down by being averaged in with the models that aren't especially focused on CH4 biogeochemistry. The albedo effect of fossil fuel particulates is rather straightforward and well constrained compared to the other things going on worldwide over decadal time scales. Dumbing-down those results isn't especially helpful either. And so on.

By dumbing-down these more definite known contributions they lower the possible floor temperature erroneously. Hence my estimate that the year 2100 will be at least +2.5°C over preindustrial.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Further, the Yellow Vest protests were a 'canary in the coal mine'. All politics aside (and I mean that - not talking politics here), there will be a metric #### ton of push-back from the middle and near middle classes worldwide with the carbon taxes that will realistically be needed to make the transition to renewables anytime before 2030.
If carbon taxes (which... haven't you been insisting are wonderful and absolutely certain to succeed?) were targeted at the middle class then yes that would be a fiasco and go nowhere.

Well so far solutions acted into law have been sufficiently failing, sometimes spectacularly so, such that both CO2 and CH4 have not only risen over the past decade but are rising at an increased rate.

The Yellow Vests were the result of just one example, from a fairly progressive nation, that failed hard. Telling marginally rich people they need to sacrifice considerably more for the year 2100 isn't much of an inspiring-to-action clarion call.

Further, there are several billion people worldwide that want to be middle class by 2030. They won't get there riding sunbeams and waving at windmills.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
The slug of CH4, while having "only" a 100 year residence time in the atmosphere
CBDunkerson wrote:
Methane's atmospheric residence time is about nine years. Nowhere near 100.
Quark Blast wrote:
First, the slug of methane we're throwing into the atmosphere today is a long throw. A half century throw at least. I'll round it up to 100 years before it all gets spewed out.

Assuming that we will continue emitting methane at current levels for 100 years is a completely different thing from your original claim that the methane we had already emitted would remain in the atmosphere at current levels for 100 years. One is an implausible assumption (e.g. even if we stay with natural gas, fracking reserves won't last a century). The other is just wrong.

Quark Blast wrote:
Well so far solutions acted into law have been sufficiently failing, sometimes spectacularly so, such that both CO2 and CH4 have not only risen over the past decade but are rising at an increased rate.

A: Failure at the global level does not mean that all local efforts have failed. That should be obvious. Many parts of the world HAVE reduced emissions.

B: CO2 emissions have increased over the past decade, but NOT at an increased rate. Indeed, CO2 emissions per capita are decreasing. The rate of CH4 emissions HAS increased, but that's in comparison to having essentially flat-lined prior to the fracking boom.

Quark Blast wrote:
The Yellow Vests were the result of just one example, from a fairly progressive nation, that failed hard.

France may be 'fairly progressive' in general, but the actions leading to the Yellow Vest protests were absolutely not. Fuel taxes targeted at the working and middle classes, discontinuation of the solidarity tax on wealth, and a minimum wage freeze were the major issues they were protesting against... all regressive policies.

It is ridiculous to try to force the people suffering the effects of global warming to also pay for the efforts to end AND adapt to it. Fossil fuels are the richest corporate sector in the history of the world. They can and should be made to spend a small fraction of those profits to clean up the mess their products have made.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
First, the slug of methane we're throwing into the atmosphere today is a long throw. A half century throw at least. I'll round it up to 100 years before it all gets spewed out.
Assuming that we will continue emitting methane at current levels for 100 years is a completely different thing from your original claim that the methane we had already emitted would remain in the atmosphere at current levels for 100 years. One is an implausible assumption (e.g. even if we stay with natural gas, fracking reserves won't last a century). The other is just wrong.

Yes poor wording on my part.

Fracking is only one source of methane.

The permafrost melting is going to be the other half of that "100 year slug", and there's not a ####### thing we can do about it. The global average might only be up +2.5°C but the Arctic and sub-Arctic can be expected to see between +5.0°C and +8.0°C over the next 80 years. Lots of carbon locked in the permafrost there.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Well so far solutions acted into law have been sufficiently failing, sometimes spectacularly so, such that both CO2 and CH4 have not only risen over the past decade but are rising at an increased rate.

A: Failure at the global level does not mean that all local efforts have failed. That should be obvious. Many parts of the world HAVE reduced emissions.

B: CO2 emissions have increased over the past decade, but NOT at an increased rate. Indeed, CO2 emissions per capita are decreasing. The rate of CH4 emissions HAS increased, but that's in comparison to having essentially flat-lined prior to the fracking boom.

A: Yes, millions have succeeded in reducing their carbon footprint. Billions have failed. You do the math.

B: Again, it's not the successes that will help us that I'm worried about. It's the failures that are far larger and on-going.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The Yellow Vests were the result of just one example, from a fairly progressive nation, that failed hard.

France may be 'fairly progressive' in general, but the actions leading to the Yellow Vest protests were absolutely not. Fuel taxes targeted at the working and middle classes, discontinuation of the solidarity tax on wealth, and a minimum wage freeze were the major issues they were protesting against... all regressive policies.

It is ridiculous to try to force the people suffering the effects of global warming to also pay for the efforts to end AND adapt to it. Fossil fuels are the richest corporate sector in the history of the world. They can and should be made to spend a small fraction of those profits to clean up the mess their products have made.

Agreed. But the size and speed of change needed will engender many more ####### ideas of the sort that sparked the Yellow Vests. Our best realistic hope right now to come in below +2.5°C in the year 2100 is a global recession/depression that somehow lasts a decade or more and yet doesn't result in multiple international conflicts.


Related article:

The climate protest movement must not alienate Britain’s working classes


I think it's a little late since I'm pretty sure most of Britain's working class hasn't had a say in governance for quite some time...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
The permafrost melting is going to be the other half of that "100 year slug", and there's not a ####### thing we can do about it.

There could certainly be a point at which we can't do anything about permafrost loss (i.e. when permafrost is emitting enough methane to continue warming the planet and melting more permafrost all by itself), but we are not there yet.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
I think it's a little late since I'm pretty sure most of Britain's working class hasn't had a say in governance for quite some time...

Perhaps so but the point of linking that article is that an amazing number of the AGW mitigation ideas/policies are right up there with telling people to eat babies and I'm slightly hopeful now that major media sources at least recognize/warn that this popular form of ####### ####### ideas exist.

Then there's all of these countries here: Top 10 Countries Most Reliant On Tourism

Though this very short list leaves out a number of countries that would go the way of Venezuela without the tourism cash injection, like Belize.

There's what we need to do to keep AGW at or below +1.5°C in the year 2100 and then there's what's practical. I'm having a hard time imagining anything less than +2.5°C in the year 2100 being practical. And I have a good imagination.


QB,

Can you imagine all the people playing Pathfinder instead of trying to kill each other to maybe solve our problems? Or what about a cross over between the MCU, Star Wars, Star Trek and Ghostbusters?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Perhaps so but the point of linking that article is that an amazing number of the AGW mitigation ideas/policies are right up there with telling people to eat babies

Aren't you the one always pushing that we need extreme changes? No air travel, everyone has to become vegetarian, population controls, sharp decreases in standard of living... et cetera.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

QB,

Can you imagine all the people playing Pathfinder instead of trying to kill each other to maybe solve our problems? Or what about a cross over between the MCU, Star Wars, Star Trek and Ghostbusters?

I can imagine anything possible, so... no.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Perhaps so but the point of linking that article is that an amazing number of the AGW mitigation ideas/policies are right up there with telling people to eat babies
Aren't you the one always pushing that we need extreme changes? No air travel, everyone has to become vegetarian, population controls, sharp decreases in standard of living... et cetera.

I see why you might ask that question of me but it's because you're not parsing my statements correctly. I'll quote myself with new emphasis. See of that helps.

QB wrote:
There's what we need to do to keep AGW at or below +1.5°C in the year 2100 and then there's what's practical.

The "extreme changes" (as you say) are what we need to do, I know too much about human nature to go for anything less than a practical solution and even then I'm not too hopeful.

:D


And what conclusion do you want us to infer from that?

Silver Crusade

Irontruth wrote:
And what conclusion do you want us to infer from that?

We're screwed


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

In general, people, collectively, are stupid. And as Heinlein said "stupidity is the only universal capital crime. The penalty is death. There is no appeal."

Pauljathome is right, we're screwed. Fortunately for me, I won't be around to see it.


pauljathome wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
And what conclusion do you want us to infer from that?
We're screwed

I've asked him if that was what we should infer before... he told me I was wrong.


In reading the IPCC report I had the thought that though the various scenarios were making certain assumptions about global GHG emission reduction, they were all averaging the 30-odd climate models to get a range of likely values.

But some models are far better than others at modeling certain aspects of the global climate (ocean currents, glaciers, CH4, wild-land fires, etc.). But wouldn't it make more sense to use the models for what they were created for and use the best ones at that?

When you do that, it becomes clear that there is really a floor to the future global average temp and that the IPCC scenarios showing the likely values and a spread up and down from that are covering a truth. The truth that the spread of likely future temperature in any given scenario is actually quite skewed to the high end.

Then there's the fact that none of the traditional models give us good cloud effect predictions at all and that the best estimate fix is that clouds will net-add to at least the near-term average global temp (say a few hundred to a few thousand years out). That raises the floor even higher. Not a lot higher but definitely not lower.

Then there's human nature in large numbers and it's amazingly invariant over time. Lots of people are dumb, really dumb. Take the nation of Germany. Dropped nuclear and went green like crazy and still ended up with a net increase in CO2 emissions a decade later. Eventually, maybe even this year, they will start down the other side and be reducing their CO2 punch, but it's the fact that while going green they went the wrong way for a decade plus is a good warning sign about what large groups of even well-intentioned people do.

At any rate the rest of the world isn't Germany and even if we were the switch from fossil fuels won't go fast enough. Building that much infrastructure in so short a time is too far from practical.

WSJ wrote:

Solar and wind power alone can’t scale up fast enough to generate the vast amounts of electricity that will be needed by midcentury, especially as we convert car engines and the like from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources. Even Germany’s concerted recent effort to add renewables—the most ambitious national effort so farwas nowhere near fast enough. A global increase in renewables at a rate matching Germany’s peak success would add about 0.7 trillion kilowatt-hours of clean electricity every year. That’s just over a fifth of the necessary 3.3 trillion annual target.

To put it another way, even if the world were as enthusiastic and technically capable as Germany at the height of its renewables buildup—and neither of these is even close to true in the great majority of countries—decarbonizing the world at that rate would take nearly 150 years.

Are we totally screwed then? Some really smart people think so.

China, given their mode of government, could build nuclear and shut down coal fast enough to get the world 1/5th of the way to where we need to be by 2050. But then they're not moving that fast and they're also doing the old Massive Belt and Road Initiative that is undermining the green things they're doing at home.

3,451 to 3,500 of 3,500 << first < prev | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.