Irontruth wrote: The Tragedy of the Commons is a fiction invented by capitalists.
Like... literally. It was invented by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 as a justification for population control.
The problem described by the thought exercise is more likely to happen under a capitalist system than it is in a socialist one.
Hey, fun fact, the guy who wrote TotC later came out and admitted it didn't really hold up in most real-life situations, because historians were all making fun of him for not having done any research into real-world common land systems. He was all, "Okay, well yes, technically, common land systems are actually incredibly efficient and they only ended because British soldiers started shooting people. Nevertheless,"
Yes, I flipped to a random page of this thread to try to prove that this thread couldn't possibly have been going for six years straight. I was not successful.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: So wait, is this really a 6-year old argument thread that has somehow never quite crossed the line into getting locked? That is... a dubious honor. Yup. But it went through a shift. I would describe the first 12-18 months of the thread as almost separate. There were a lot of different people, including some forum personalities who no longer post, but the conversation was with a fair number of participants. Somewhere in 2016 though, it shifted to 4 people as the primary driver. QB, CBD, thejeff, and myself. Occasionally someone would pop in to say something. Like BNW would have a couple of comments per year. And then every 9 months or so, someone new would comment on the OP of the topic.
Otherwise though, it's been the 4 of us bickering incessantly. Usually the three of us against QB, but occasionally I get a stance that others try to refute as well.
So, not only has it been a bickering thread that's avoided being locked somehow, but it's really just a couple of people. We've had a couple of mass deletions by the mods. I want to say about one per year, though I don't think we had one in 2020.
We avoided the politics ban by only discussing it at the international level, or as the whole US. "The administration" or "the federal government" with only vague allusions to whichever party was in power.
Now I almost want to print the thread out just to see how big it is.... cause there are a lot of long posts.
Irontruth wrote: Kobold Cleaver wrote: So wait, is this really a 6-year old argument thread that has somehow never quite crossed the line into getting locked? That is... a dubious honor. Yup. But it went through a shift. I would describe the first 12-18 months of the thread as almost separate. There were a lot of different people, including some forum personalities who no longer post, but the conversation was with a fair number of participants. Somewhere in 2016 though, it shifted to 4 people as the primary driver. QB, CBD, thejeff, and myself. Occasionally someone would pop in to say something. Like BNW would have a couple of comments per year. And then every 9 months or so, someone new would comment on the OP of the topic.
Otherwise though, it's been the 4 of us bickering incessantly. Usually the three of us against QB, but occasionally I get a stance that others try to refute as well.
So, not only has it been a bickering thread that's avoided being locked somehow, but it's really just a couple of people. We've had a couple of mass deletions by the mods. I want to say about one per year, though I don't think we had one in 2020.
Except recently when we've had a few other people tag in to argue with QB instead of us old timers. :)
I don't remember deletions since well before then, but I could easily be wrong. Mostly I've assumed that since it was just a handful of us, no one was flagging posts and we were flying under the radar.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote: So wait, is this really a 6-year old argument thread that has somehow never quite crossed the line into getting locked? That is... a dubious honor. There are a few threads like it, mostly the same format of a small group of people arguing with QB who has chosen to use the long past useful thread as his personal blog/“Science and Business” fanfiction.
@KC - Huh? I thought it was because we're all adults and don't use personal insults to make our petty points of difference.... Hey! Something new to argue about!
:D
As for the recent 'Greenland and Antarctica aren't the main source of sea level rise to date' attempted defense against my stellar sweep of fact-based citations, well, I note that these paper denials are to no avail.
JPL-NASA wrote: These findings suggest that climate models may underestimate glacial ice loss by at least a factor of two if they don’t account for undercutting by a warm ocean. Quark wrote: Expressly stated in another paper - see here -, we can pretty much double the prior modeled rate of global sea level rise if we want to get our best estimate up to a useful scope for mitigation-planning. Yes, thank you JPL-NASA for your words of flaming steel with which I pierce the paper defenses of my worthy* adversaries ...er, jolly fellow controversialists.
The trick is in understanding the words "at least" and "factor of two" as they relate to the words "glacial ice loss". And then compare those to the words "pretty much double" as they relate to "global sea level rise".
We are after all estimating the state of affairs in the year 2100 - the target date for the Paris Agreement. And if between now and then there is an "at least" doubling of glacial ice melting over previously modeled results, it seems imminently reasonable to expect pretty much 2x rate of sea level rise compared to the IPCC average model. No?
I see the words "at least" as a floor, and given the other trends we see in glaciology papers (many of which are cited well up thread), I make the rather modest interpretation that we can pretty much double the rate of sea level rise. Maybe it'll be only 1.75x, maybe it'll turn out to be 2.25x, maybe more. Sure as #### ain't going to be 1.25x! And whatever it will be it'll keep going past the year 2100 even if we manage to develop and scale CC&S.
More BOOM!
* ???
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: @KC - Huh? I thought it was because we're all adults and don't use personal insults to make our petty points of difference Except you ALWAYS use personal insults. You don’t even make it through the post where you claim insults aren’t used before insulting CB.
Quark wrote:
The trick is in understanding the words "at least" and "factor of two" as they relate to the words "glacial ice loss". And then compare those to the words "pretty much double" as they relate to "global sea level rise".
No, the trick is in understanding that as always you have taken the evidence of A and declared that it proves B without providing anything so much us a spiders silk of data to connect the two.
CB pointed out that the amount of glacial ice loss is not equal to the amount of global sea level rise as there are additional sources of sea level rise. You chose to respond to that by simply restating your claim.
Once more using oranges to prove apples.
Quark Blast wrote: And if between now and then there is an "at least" doubling of glacial ice melting over previously modeled results, it seems imminently reasonable to expect pretty much 2x rate of sea level rise compared to the IPCC average model. No? Um... no. That isn't reasonable at all.
In any case, you have essentially conceded (without actually saying so) that your original claim, that the paper "expressly stated" that the rate of sea level rise would double, was completely false. This is instead a 'conclusion' of your own based on the 'logic' that if one thing doubles then it is 'imminently reasonable' to believe that some other, related but different, thing will also double.
Quark Blast wrote: @KC - Huh? I thought it was because we're all adults and don't use personal insults to make our petty points of difference No, you all pretty much use personal insults on a regular basis, just slightly hidden and deniable.
And as to you all being adults, well the truly adult behaviour would to be have long since just dropped this thread (and yes, I'm aware that I also share that childish behaviour in not having dropped this thread. Although I've come close a few times and manage to post only occassionally :-))
Quark Blast wrote:
As for Greenland/Antarctica melting and sea level rise:
When rate of something is the major component of another-thing going forward, and that something is stated to "at least double" between now and the end of the century, I think it a fair use of math to say the rate of another-thing will "pretty much double" by the end of the century.
When there is 1cm of sea level rise, what % of that are you claiming comes from melted ice?
And yes, any specific cm could come from any specific source, but in general.
Quark Blast wrote: When rate of something is the major component of another-thing going forward, and that something is stated to "at least double" between now and the end of the century, I think it a fair use of math to say the rate of another-thing will "pretty much double" by the end of the century. Yet that isn't what you said. No, you falsely claimed that a scientific paper "expressly stated" that the rate of sea level rise would double.
It did not. That is instead, as you say above, something which YOU believe a "fair use of math" can devise from the contents of the paper.
Irontruth wrote: When there is 1cm of sea level rise, what % of that are you claiming comes from melted ice? The answer changes over time;
Graph of factors contributing to sea level rise since 1960
The paper QB cited studied the factors contributing to the green line and concluded that the rate of future ice loss for this line could be double what models not including bottom melt would project. It MIGHT then be reasonable to extend that conclusion to the teal line as well... though the paper in question didn't study that.
From that, QB has claimed that we can extrapolate that the rate of growth of the black line will also double.
I disagree... but it also doesn't matter because either way his claim that the paper he cited "expressly stated" that the rate of growth of the black line would double was untrue. It said nothing of the kind... explicitly or implicitly.
This is undeniable... and yet he continues to claim that >I< have made a "gross error" with lots of 'Boom!' nonsense. It is this deliberate dishonesty on QB's part which perpetuates this thread. People like Mark Hoover come here with legitimate questions about how things work and get outright lies from QB. Yes, correcting those lies results in argument... but I strongly believe that just allowing people to spread misinformation is FAR worse.
CBDunkerson wrote: Irontruth wrote: When there is 1cm of sea level rise, what % of that are you claiming comes from melted ice? The answer changes over time;
Graph of factors contributing to sea level rise since 1960
The paper QB cited studied the factors contributing to the green line and concluded that the rate of future ice loss for this line could be double what models not including bottom melt would project. It MIGHT then be reasonable to extend that conclusion to the teal line as well... though the paper in question didn't study that.
From that, QB has claimed that we can extrapolate that the rate of growth of the black line will also double.
I disagree... but it also doesn't matter because either way his claim that the paper he cited "expressly stated" that the rate of growth of the black line would double was untrue. It said nothing of the kind... explicitly or implicitly.
This is undeniable... and yet he continues to claim that >I< have made a "gross error" with lots of 'Boom!' nonsense. It is this deliberate dishonesty on QB's part which perpetuates this thread. People like Mark Hoover come here with legitimate questions about how things work and get outright lies from QB. Yes, correcting those lies results in argument... but I strongly believe that just allowing people to spread misinformation is FAR worse. I had a specific reason that I was asking the question of him.
Quark Blast wrote:
The Coronavirus situation illustrates rather well how it is governments do such a ##### job at managing large complex issues.
I would be extremely cautious confusing what is willful negligence over incompetence.
Scavion wrote: Quark Blast wrote: The Coronavirus situation illustrates rather well how it is governments do such a ##### job at managing large complex issues. I would be extremely cautious confusing what is willful negligence over incompetence. When talking about one government (any one government) I tend to agree with you but in this particular case we have the USA outperforming the entirety of the EU in the vaccination rollout - over 2x better than Germany and ~4x better than France.
Now the reason this makes a good analog for the whole AGW/Paris Agreement thing is there's a couple of hundred countries (though really only about 50) who need to be marching in lock-stop awesomeness in order to get the outcome right circa the year 2100. And by "right" I mean hit the realistic target of +2.5°C average global temperature over the pre-industrial norm.
Heck just look at this thread. There's people on here who'll argue with me over 2+2=4 rather than give a virtual nod of acknowledgment and move on; or even just be silent and move on.
Or to use a more concrete example, someone posts a link to this graph - a graph of sea level rise and its contributing factors from 1960 to 2010 - as an argument against my citation and discussion of what sea level rise will be from 2020 to 2100!
Now imagine how 200 nations are going to get together....
:D
Sorry, it just makes me laugh 'cause crying ain't my thing.
I'm still confused. Because earlier you were citing Bjorn Lomborg, who says that global warming is likely to only be a small problem.
Why would we need to coordinate a global effort in order to deal with a "small problem" that will only affect like 1% of global GDP?
Lomborg's entire thesis is that small, smart solutions are all that is required... since small, smart solutions can efficiently solve small problems.
Irontruth wrote: I'm still confused. I don't doubt it and from this POV your confusion looks to be self-inflicted.
Irontruth wrote: Because earlier you were citing Bjorn Lomborg, who says that global warming is likely to only be a small problem.
Why would we need to coordinate a global effort in order to deal with a "small problem" that will only affect like 1% of global GDP?
It's only "small" if we don't ####### the attempted solutions.
Irontruth wrote: Lomborg's entire thesis is that small, smart solutions are all that is required... since small, smart solutions can efficiently solve small problems. Lomborg's position is that small (relative to $100 trillion GND), smart solutions based on science are the only antidote to half-assed policies based on fear and hype that tend to blow up small problems into much bigger ones.
For a few recent examples of the latter see these:
Yellow Vests
Indian Farmers' Protest
Dutch Cerfew Riots
Planet of the Humans
As I said up thread, we have about 2.8 years worth of CO2 "budget" left and during that time we need to build a Net Zero economy by doing at least the following:
- Build nearly 500,000 more wind turbines
- Install 80,000,000 rooftop PV systems
- Build three large hydroelectric power plants in Alaska
- Other ######### ideas like 8,800 tidal turbines
Any idea what the carbon footprint is for all that?
??? Anyone???
Environmental concerns anyone?
Lawsuits slowing or stopping these efforts anyone?
Remember, those numbers are just for the USA.
Do you suppose that^ alone will use up the remaining global CO2 "budget"?
Now another 7 billion people will need a similar build out of green tech. So take that estimated carbon footprint and multiply it by 20x.
What's that^ going to do to the remaining CO2 "budget"?
Quark, I just read an article mentioning that someone named Jim Hoft who writes on a blog called Gateway Pundit was banned from Twitter. It also mentioned that he ends his posts with 'Boom'. Is Gateway Pundit one of your sources?
Quark Blast wrote:
Lomborg's position is that small (relative to $100 trillion GND), smart solutions based on science are the only antidote to half-assed policies based on fear and hype that tend to blow up small problems into much bigger ones.
Except that isn't the thesis that I highlighted (in the video clip). A major part of his argument is that climate change is actually a relatively small problem compared to some of the other challenges in the world. He considers other problems to be much larger and more important.
From an article in July of last year.
Quote: Take the very real problem of sea level rise. This is often portrayed in near-apocalyptic terms. We recently have been treated to widespread reports that oceans could end up rising much more than what the UN climate panel tells us, displacing an astonishing 187 million people. Bloomberg News declared that coastal cities such as Miami may “drown in 80 years.”
In reality, the 187 million number assumes that, for the next 80 years, nobody in the world will do anything to deal with the rising waters. In real life, of course, countries adapt. The very study that gave the 187 million number also shows that with adaptation, such as protection with dikes or seawalls, the number of people who have to move by the end of the century is just 305,000. The number that made it around the world was exaggerated 600 times. For context, 305,000 people moving over the next 80 years is less than half the number of people that move out of California each year.
He's clearly trying to make the effect of sea level rise will essentially be insignificant. The effect will essentially be barely noticeable.
Do you disagree with him?
avr wrote: Quark, I just read an article mentioning that someone named Jim Hoft who writes on a blog called Gateway Pundit was banned from Twitter. It also mentioned that he ends his posts with 'Boom'. Is Gateway Pundit one of your sources? Good question I suppose but easily and succinctly answered:
No.
If that doesn't convince you then let me wax autobiographical:
I realized the utter folly of social media late in 7th grade and have assiduously avoided it ever since. Social media is for people with no life or for those that pretend they do (aka "Influencers").
As for Lomborg:
I expect I disagree with him on several particular points of the larger AGW debate. His illustrations using Nordhaus' Nobel Prize winning studies are to point out the absurdities of trying to combat the worst-case scenario for several reasons:
1) We don't actually know what the worst-case is as the ability to accurately model the effects of flooding globally 80 years from now are highly uncertain.
2) The so-called worst-case value (the 187 million flooded) is the number that makes headlines the world over but no one mentions that it assumes there is no human adaptation to changing climate.
3) The cost of combating a modeled (and hypothetical!) worst-case is fairly well constrained and it's enormous, and such a burdened economy can't react well to anything else the future is sure to bring.
As for the bald assertion that Lomborg is trying to paint the future effects of AGW as 'essentially insignificant/barely noticeable', he flatly lays out a future mitigation that is significant but affordable against one that is unaffordable. If you think trillions spent over the next decade on a GND will be money well spent then you need to show how that is even remotely likely without near-miracle tech + global industrial scale CC&S.
Can't chalk this one up to a infra-low price on oil causing peeps to stock up.
A Huge Number of Oil Supertankers Are Pointing at China’s Ports
Well, there goes the last of the CO2 savings from 2020*!
:D
I've noted previously that the Coronavirus ain't done yet but then those darn Isreali biochemists screwed that up it seems.
New Israeli drug cured 29 of 30 moderate/serious COVID cases
29 of 30 phase 1 trial patients left hospital within 3-5 days
Of course this will depend critically on how much treatment costs. No doubt these first few dozen cures are $100k-$400k, or perhaps more, on top of the cost of hospitalization. If that cost can be scaled down to $100-$400 per treatment this cure could be a thing with global impact.
* And then some! :D
Quark Blast wrote:
As for the bald assertion that Lomborg is trying to paint the future effects of AGW as 'essentially insignificant/barely noticeable', he flatly lays out a future mitigation that is significant but affordable against one that is unaffordable. If you think trillions spent over the next decade on a GND will be money well spent then you need to show how that is even remotely likely without near-miracle tech + global industrial scale CC&S.
This is a false dichotomy, so no, I don't need to show that at all.
Either AGW is a problem that will require large resources, or it isn't.
Lomborg's argument is that AGW does not require large resources. He agrees that it is an issue, but his argument is that our resources are zero-sum. Since other problems are larger than AGW, we should therefore NOT spend them on AGW, but on those other problems (like hunger, vaccination, birth control, education, etc).
Lomborg's mitigation plan is essentially "spend money on other problems, and people will solve AGW themselves." For example with the sea level rise, his argument is basically that if people are wealthier, they can afford to just move, therefore we don't have to really do anything about it.
You keep talking about trillions of dollars. That implies to me that you disagree with Lomborg.
"Large" like $100 billion per year?
OR
"Large" like $2 trillion per year?
And does either answer matter if we are going to emit several hundred gigatons of CO2 over the Paris Agreement target anyway?
The point being made is that global humanity will be emitting hundreds of gigatons more than the remaining Paris Agreement target. Mitigating for a target we're going to sail way past, and not return to without near-miracle tech + CC&S, is simply adding to the CO2 overage. And it imperils our future ability to effect useful AGW mitigation - you know, 'cause we're bankrupt.
How can people not see that?
Well here's how:
National Geographic is an organization that is totally onboard with combating the whole AGW thing. Right?
Yep!
OK, then why this:
Whiskey Road trip - Germany
In fact this whole section of their web presence is largely about jet travel. They seem to recognize this bit of incongruity with a nod in this direction, Can carbon capture make flying more sustainable?, but direct air capture (DAC), the mode of off-set they're highlighting in the article is simply not affordable for 99.999% of humanity. Or even 99% of those who will fly to Germany to go on a whisky tasting tour.
A whisky tasting tour? The world is 'burning up' (if you believe the hype) and National Geographic is promoting going on a whisky tasting tour in Germany? What the ####### #### is wrong with them?!? Srsly!
Oh but it's worse than that. Here's a telling quote from the article on DAC:
"In DAC projects where the captured carbon is not stored in the ground, it can be recycled and used as a raw material.... for instance... add fizz to Valser, a Swiss mineral water." Because we all know the fizz from mineral water won't subsequently escape to the atmosphere as CO2 and act as a greenhouse gas.
Holy ####-########! What is the take-away lesson here? If I wave and scream the right words loud enough it doesn't matter what I actually do.
Ahhh humanity, thy future is ever so bright!
:D
....
In other news ~25% of USA Healthcare workers refuse to get vaccinated. Nice!
Quark Blast wrote: The point being made is that global humanity will be emitting hundreds of gigatons more than the remaining Paris Agreement target. Mitigating for a target we're going to sail way past, and not return to without near-miracle tech + CC&S, is simply adding to the CO2 overage. And it imperils our future ability to effect useful AGW mitigation - you know, 'cause we're bankrupt.
How can people not see that?
Lomborg disagrees. AGW will only result in 1-2% damage to global GDP according to him. Lomborg would say that you are overreacting.
Quark Blast wrote: In other news ~25% of USA Healthcare workers refuse to get vaccinated. Nice! Per a comment from you upthread QB, you don't read biased news so I won't bother posting sources, but the top 3 google hits all suggest this is common among hc workers. It is a mix of skepticism over the speed of the vaccine and not wanting to be "first in line" over more deserving patients.
So, what's your point? Is the fact that some amount of HC workers refusing to get vaccinated somehow proving one of your many conclusions about the pandemic? Will this go on to illuminate the truth of how handling the pandemic is somehow proof of how capable or inept humans are at dealing with AGW?
How has this random statistic that, for all we know you just made up the numbers for, got ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand?
Unless, as Irontruth and others have said upthread many, many times, this is yet another distraction. Some conversational tangent to keep us from the fact that you said you disagree with SOME of Lomborg's points, half-answering IT's question, but not really committing to the absolute of his original question, whether or not you agree with Lomborg's whole conclusion.
A little bit after I first joined this thread was when you posted that Lomborg video. I watched it and several others on the man, based on how you had propped up his main thesis that AGW is nothing more than a hit to global GDP, whether we hit 1.5 or 2.5 plus degrees by 2100.
Other sources that have since been cited suggest that 2.5 degree rise could be a lot more serious than that, and you yourself are suggesting we prioritize AGW as a very serious threat.
Lomborg's OTHER point though, in videos and now 2 different books, are that fixing the other problems of the global community will inherently create mitigations for emissions and AGW. For example if we make the whole world richer and end poverty, humans will be able to afford machines and animals with less emissions.
Is that what you want? Is that also YOUR stance here? Or should we just go back to chatting about how some people either have honest skepticism about medicine or want others to get a potentially life-saving vaccine before them?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Quark Blast wrote: In other news ~25% of USA Healthcare workers refuse to get vaccinated. Nice! Per a comment from you upthread QB, you don't read biased news so I won't bother posting sources, but the top 3 google hits all suggest this is common among hc workers. It is a mix of skepticism over the speed of the vaccine and not wanting to be "first in line" over more deserving patients.
So, what's your point? Is the fact that some amount of HC workers refusing to get vaccinated somehow proving one of your many conclusions about the pandemic? Will this go on to illuminate the truth of how handling the pandemic is somehow proof of how capable or inept humans are at dealing with AGW?
How has this random statistic that, for all we know you just made up the numbers for, got ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand? I did set the stat apart from the previous portion of the post with <CR>, "....", <CR>, and "In other news...", so it's not like I wasn't patent about the change in subject or trying to 'sneak' something in. Anyway, it's worth citing because it's a fact that those in charge of the vaccine rollout campaign towards functional herd immunity seemingly didn't plan for.
In France vaccine skepticism edges past 60% (depending on how the question is asked) but is comfortably above 50% in any case. Good luck getting herd immunity in that group!
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Unless, as Irontruth and others have said upthread many, many times, this is yet another distraction. Some conversational tangent to keep us from the fact that you said you disagree with SOME of Lomborg's points, half-answering IT's question, but not really committing to the absolute of his original question, whether or not you agree with Lomborg's whole conclusion. The metalhead's questions are specifically meant to derail discussion. I watched, passively for three full pages not so long ago in this very thread, as he and CB wailed upon each other with pointless minutia and churlish sniping, all the while concluding exactly nothing. I refuse to be distracted by their predilections.
Thanks for asking though!
:D
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: A little bit after I first joined this thread was when you posted that Lomborg video. I watched it and several others on the man, based on how you had propped up his main thesis that AGW is nothing more than a hit to global GDP, whether we hit 1.5 or 2.5 plus degrees by 2100.
Other sources that have since been cited suggest that 2.5 degree rise could be a lot more serious than that, and you yourself are suggesting we prioritize AGW as a very serious threat.
To your first paragraph here, I answered this just a ways up thread, you must've overlooked it. The summary of which is repeated again here for you:
The point being made is that global humanity will be* emitting hundreds of gigatons more than the remaining Paris Agreement target. Mitigating for a target we're going to sail way past, and not return to without near-miracle tech + CC&S, is simply adding to the CO2 overage. And it imperils our future ability to effect useful AGW mitigation - you know, 'cause we're bankrupt!
How can people not see that?
As to the second part, that is one of the areas where Bjorn Lomborg and I disagree; if not in fact, at least in proper emphasis.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Lomborg's OTHER point though, in videos and now 2 different books, are that fixing the other problems of the global community will inherently create mitigations for emissions and AGW. For example if we make the whole world richer and end poverty, humans will be able to afford machines and animals with less emissions.
Is that what you want? Is that also YOUR stance here? Or should we just go back to chatting about how some people either have honest skepticism about medicine or want others to get a potentially life-saving vaccine before them?
You're the one that choose to fixate on an emphatic aside from one of my more recent posts and totally ignore the larger points of my argument. So that's on you, not me.
Back to the points I was making, again repeated here for you:
So what about that whiskey tasting tour? Is there not a HUGE dose of incongruity with National Geographic still promoting airline tourism given the urgency with which they proclaim allegiance to all things GND? It looks for all I can tell to be yet another case of signaling over actioning.
And if they can't get something that basic right, what reason do we have to hope that 50 to 200 nations will somehow get all things GND right?
And these nations, they will all need to get it right because we've just about spent our global CO2 "budget". There is no longer room for error if the reported science is any good at all.
Sadly, governments routinely FUBAR relatively straightforward problems with their "solutions".
For a few recent examples of the latter see these:
Yellow Vests
Indian Farmers' Protest
Dutch Cerfew Riots
Planet of the Humans
As I just said, we have about 2.8 years worth of CO2 "budget" left and during that time we need to build a Net Zero economy by doing at least the following:
- Build nearly 500,000 more wind turbines
- Install 80,000,000 rooftop PV systems
- Build three large hydroelectric power plants in Alaska
- Other ######### ideas like 8,800 tidal turbines
Any idea what the carbon footprint is for all that?
??? Anyone??? Because I'll bet it blows the #### out of the remaining CO2 "budget"!
Environmental concerns anyone? Lawsuits slowing or stopping these efforts anyone?
Because we don't have time to waste on such niceties as Endangered Species, Migration Corridors, and other tree-hugging dalliances when there's trillions of dollars to be spent over the next decade. Those projects have to be built like yesterday people - #### the Sandhill Crane! We need wind turbines stat! </sarcasm>
Also now, don't forget (!), those infrastructure numbers are just for the USA.
Because that^ alone will use up the remaining global CO2 "budget"!
Now another 7 billion people will need a similar build out of green tech. So take that estimated carbon footprint and multiply it by 20x.
What's that^ going to do to the remaining CO2 "budget"?
* Not "maybe", but "will be". Barring global nuclear war of course.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: So what about that whiskey tasting tour? Is there not a HUGE dose of incongruity with National Geographic still promoting airline tourism given the urgency with which they proclaim allegiance to all things GND? It looks for all I can tell to be yet another case of signaling over actioning.
And if they can't get something that basic right, what reason do we have to hope that 50 to 200 nations will somehow get all things GND right?
I guess you're right, if a for profit travel-based magazine didn't shutter their doors and stop publishing articles to show that they really were behind the Green New Deal how can a GOVERNMENT be trusted to not keep publishing their own travelogues?
Quark Blast wrote:
The metalhead's questions are specifically meant to derail discussion. I watched, passively for three full pages not so long ago in this very thread, as he and CB wailed upon each other with pointless minutia and churlish sniping, all the while concluding exactly nothing. I refuse to be distracted by their predilections.
Me asking about whether or not you agree with Lomborg on his assessment of AGW is a derail?
In a thread about AGW... where you brought in Lomborg as an expert, me asking questions about him... is a derail.
This is why no one buys your b&@@%&*%.
Indeed. And just like rich peeps gonna no way stop with their 'whiskey tours' and other wealthy jet-setting distractions, us peons gonna no way stop with the next-day delivery for our all important stuff we "can't live without".
It all adds up and if you care about your carbon footprint, then stop with the the jet travel(e.g.). You won't of course, post-pandemic, and neither will anyone else.
That's the problem.
All these particulars argued so vehemently, those are the symptoms. And we do like our symptoms addictions, eh?
It's the symptoms that are either modeled poorly or (usually) not at all in the major studies to date. Hence the models are #### for telling us what the year 2100 average global temperature will be*. Incidentally this underscores the need for the Wolfram approach, but that is an argument well past the understanding of many on this thread so we shall not revisit it at present.
Meanwhile, when their particular research is solid or their perspicacity bracing, I'll continue to cite Lomborg (or whoever) as I try and understand the future state of Earth's climate.
Mark, how're we doing?
* And by "####" I mean several tenths one way or another; a rough 25% error either way from some guestimate value. Hard to hang good policy on that flimsy peg.
Except, Lomborg as an expert is claiming that it's not really that big of a deal.
Irontruth wrote: Except, Lomborg as an expert is claiming that it's not really that big of a deal. Oddly, when accused of scientific fraud, Lomborg's defense was that he is NOT an expert and simply didn't understand that the things he was saying were blatantly untrue.
Makes one wonder why anyone would admire / cite him as a source on this topic.
Quark Blast wrote: Indeed. And just like rich peeps gonna no way stop with their 'whiskey tours' and other wealthy jet-setting distractions, us peons gonna no way stop with the next-day delivery for our all important stuff we "can't live without".
It all adds up and if you care about your carbon footprint, then stop with the the jet travel(e.g.). You won't of course, post-pandemic, and neither will anyone else.
That's the problem.
All these particulars argued so vehemently, those are the symptoms. And we do like our symptoms addictions, eh?
It's the symptoms that are either modeled poorly or (usually) not at all in the major studies to date. Hence the models are #### for telling us what the year 2100 average global temperature will be*. Incidentally this underscores the need for the Wolfram approach, but that is an argument well past the understanding of many on this thread so we shall not revisit it at present.
Meanwhile, when their particular research is solid or their perspicacity bracing, I'll continue to cite Lomborg (or whoever) as I try and understand the future state of Earth's climate.
Mark, how're we doing?
* And by "####" I mean several tenths one way or another; a rough 25% error either way from some guestimate value. Hard to hang good policy on that flimsy peg.
Well, full disclosure I'm still trying to figure out a cogent response to the points you've made over and over upthread about the yellow vests and such but haven't pulled it together yet, so sorry I haven't engaged there.
Purely on the point though that all that air travel adds up you're right... it adds up to 3%. Per the notation at the top of the chart it states "Aviation emissions includes passenger air travel, freight, and military operations." So that 3% includes all the stuff you're mentioning QB; looks like you and Dunks McGee there agree!
As for people not ending that, well... until Dr Seth Brundle's teleporter is completed I think airplanes are gonna stick around. I know in my own personal life I'm trying to cut some emissions by growing a garden in season and TRYING to cut meat down in my diet, but that's a drop in the bucket.
Still you're right that most folks aren't going to stop ordering things online and getting stuff shipped. As long as that is a healthy profit driver companies will keep using air shipping. Bottom line, we'll need to look elsewhere for now on emissions savings. Thankfully that's only 3%.
And on poor modeling... don't get me started. In that video you shared from Lomborg he was quoting data and making conclusions from NOAA for weather anomalies WHILE SAYING that that same data was not the most accurate predictor. The reality is that a lot of the symptoms we're modeling for 2100 just aren't super reliable.
The 2 things that are reliable is that emissions = bad and higher temps = catastrophe on SOME level. Let's just keep it simple; do EVERYTHING humanly possible to reduce emissions, and in turn try to keep the temps low.
The 25 largest emitters in the world account for 50% of all emissions.
Looks like the Energy sector is where we really need to attack. Q ball, this must be why you always cite all the "miracle tech" we need to hit the loftiest goals.
Hitting 100% renewable won't require miracle tech. Also, some recent research is suggesting that large drops in carbon emissions will have some immediate benefits (not just air pollution things like smog, but AGW type benefits). The primary problem is energy storage, and as renewables continue to become a thing the incentive to solve that problem will increase. Eventually wind producers will have enough production that storage will become a necessity to increase profits. Increasing the number of turbines has diminishing returns unless that energy can be stored.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Looks like the Energy sector is where we really need to attack. Q ball, this must be why you always cite all the "miracle tech" we need to hit the loftiest goals. We need CC&S (and by that I don't mean Direct Air Capture of CO2 in order to make drinks fizzy like the National Geographic article was trying to sell us on! #### #### ######## who comes up with that schlock?!? And how do they still have a job writing for National Geographic?), no getting around it if our target temperature is really <+2.0°C in 2100.
Especially so as we clean up our emissions - all that smog and particulate pollutants are keeping the Earth measurably cooler (somewhere between 0.5°C and 1.0°C).
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Well, full disclosure I'm still trying to figure out a cogent response to the points you've made over and over upthread about the yellow vests and such but haven't pulled it together yet, so sorry I haven't engaged there. Please do*.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: I know in my own personal life I'm trying to cut some emissions by growing a garden in season and TRYING to cut meat down in my diet, but that's a drop in the bucket. Now multiply that drop by 7.7 billion and you have an intractable problem.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Still you're right that most folks aren't going to stop ordering things online and getting stuff shipped. As long as that is a healthy profit driver companies will keep using air shipping. Bottom line, we'll need to look elsewhere for now on emissions savings. Thankfully that's only 3%. Not just companies but countries. Shutting down the Keystone XL is a major boost to Russian oil interests. That stops the pipeline now, but it sure as #### doesn't shut down the demand now, because the demand is still there and will be met by people who have zero interest in capping collateral greenhouse gas releases from their oil and gas extraction processes - because, you know, profit.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: And on poor modeling... don't get me started. In that video you shared from Lomborg he was quoting data and making conclusions from NOAA for weather anomalies WHILE SAYING that that same data was not the most accurate predictor. The reality is that a lot of the symptoms we're modeling for 2100 just aren't super reliable. The funny thing is when I cite a source to make a point several things happen in the minds of my detractors that then spew upon this thread.
1) Because I cite one thing, then all things said by the cited source are lumped in, mixed together, misinterpreted as often as not, and then one or a few select point(s) of contention are taken out of context, declared a lie and by association all things from said source and myself are "########".
2) If the source is otherwise acceptable my point gets ignored.
3) If I try and point any of this^ out I get castigated.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The 2 things that are reliable is that emissions = bad and higher temps = catastrophe on SOME level. Let's just keep it simple; do EVERYTHING humanly possible to reduce emissions, and in turn try to keep the temps low. Have you read much history? Are you current in the news? If you have then you'll know that we have, are doing, and will do "everything humanly possible" - the good, the bad, and the terribly ugly.
Problem is, because the CO2 "budget" is so tight, global humanity pretty much needs to do ONLY everything right from today until the year 2050 or so. And in the course of doing everything right, we in the 'West' will need to take somewhere between a 20% and 30% hit on our personal GDP for roughly all of those three decades.
You really think that'll happen?
* Now maybe those links (i.e. Yellow Vests, Indian Farmers' Protest, Dutch Cerfew Riots, Planet of the Humans) start to make a little more sense?
So, last time I was here, I got a bit of info re: what the big problem is (animals can only survive a certain increase over a short time, and we're going to push that even in good scenarios), but something else has come up to pique my interest.
Carbon capture, and transitioning to renewable only.
To the many who are actually here in good faith, could you educate me again?
For CC, what's the general thing of that? Is it lots of machines or chemicals that bond with CO2 and release O2 or just take it out entirely? Or something else?
For renewable only, what's a bit deeper than the general picture? I know wind and solar are part of it, and we need better storage systems, but I'm not enough up on this to know deeper than what the general direction of the issue is.
So, maybe I'm not understanding your conclusions QB and forgive me if I'm STILL not getting it... I'm trying.
What you said above was Quark Blast wrote: Lomborg's position is that small (relative to $100 trillion GND), smart solutions based on science are the only antidote to half-assed policies based on fear and hype that tend to blow up small problems into much bigger ones.
For a few recent examples of the latter see these:
Yellow Vests
Indian Farmers' Protest
Dutch Curfew Riots
Planet of the Humans
Now, so far I've gotten through the Yellow Vests, the Indian Farmer's Protest and the Dutch Curfew stuff. Again, in full disclosure I haven't watched Planet of the Humans so I apologize if I'm jumping the gun.
The Yellow Vests seems to be right on the money; it was a knee jerk reaction of government policy enacted without considering the unintended consequences. The resulting protests reveal that the policy was reactionary and I think I get where your conclusions come from on this one. I think I even agree with you here.
However...
The Dutch Curfew policies were part of a larger initiative within the Dutch lockdown. Said lockdown, once finally fully enforced is seeing small but steady declines per the AP. Also, those protests have largely disappeared. It seems to me that the government in this case: followed the science, people didn't like it, they got rowdy, and then health outcomes improved and people went home.
The Indian Farmers' protests is another place where I think the protests are valid, but this doesn't really illustrate some "half-assed policy based on fear and hype", in my opinion. Modi has been trying to deregulate and grind more "right wing" policy since 2014 and these 3 bills have their roots in legislation going back to 2017.
Do I think the deregulation and basic abolishment of the MSP will hurt farmers? WHAT DO I KNOW, I have like, 20 minutes worth of knowledge on Indian politics. Plus, these forums isn't a good place to get all political anyway. Suffice it to say, I don't like mass deregulation when it happens around my own country and let's just leave it at that.
However, the point you were linking that to, unless I'm wrong, is that governments shouldn't make decisions based on fear and hype. This then relates back to how governments will make bad policy on AGW b/c of these OTHER policies, right?
Well, 2 of the 3 you showed me weren't about fear and hype... they were about money and public health. One followed the science, the science SEEMS to be bearing out so far, and so cool. The other, for the money, relates all the way back to how sugar was deregulated in India in the late 90's, farmers' lives didn't improve because of it, and now over 2 decades later, SHOCKINGLY farmers don't want more of the same.
When money makes the decision, government policy breaks bad. Also too, I agree with you; when "fear and hype" does the same, same bad results.
When science leads the way, scientifically predicted outcomes start materializing. It's happening in the Netherlands. Its happened in several moments scattered throughout this pandemic. Its BEEN happening per the link I shared above from the World Resources Institute.
And I think, again, unless I miss my guess, that's what Irontruth and CBDunkerson and others upthread have been trying to say.
Would you agree that science leading the way is a good way to go Quark-a-lark-a-ding-dong? And is there enough evidence here from the AP and in other sources that SOME government policies, driven by science, are capable of achieving success?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So, maybe I'm not understanding your conclusions QB and forgive me if I'm STILL not getting it...
Now, so far I've gotten through the Yellow Vests, the Indian Farmer's Protest and the Dutch Curfew stuff. Again, in full disclosure I haven't watched Planet of the Humans so I apologize if I'm jumping the gun.
Watch Planet of the Humans. Also watch some of the critics if you like but they largely miss what the documentary is about.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The Yellow Vests seems to be right on the money; it was a knee jerk reaction of government policy enacted without considering the unintended consequences. The resulting protests reveal that the policy was reactionary and I think I get where your conclusions come from on this one. I think I even agree with you here.
However...
The Dutch Curfew policies were part of a larger initiative within the Dutch lockdown. Said lockdown, once finally fully enforced is seeing small but steady declines per the AP. Also, those protests have largely disappeared. It seems to me that the government in this case: followed the science, people didn't like it, they got rowdy, and then health outcomes improved and people went home.
India didn't do squat for COVID policy the last several months and their numbers have gone way down.
In Holland people went home because policing improved (kind of like why CHAZ is no longer a thing). The point is the curfew protests were completely unexpected and well out of proportion to what the 'deciders' thought would happen in response but anyone on the ground could've told them it was coming.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: The Indian Farmers' protests is another place where I think the protests are valid, but this doesn't really illustrate some "half-assed policy based on fear and hype", in my opinion. Modi has been trying to deregulate and grind more "right wing" policy since 2014 and these 3 bills have their roots in legislation going back to 2017.
....
However, the point you were linking that to, unless I'm wrong, is that governments shouldn't make decisions based on fear and hype. This then relates back to how governments will make bad policy on AGW b/c of these OTHER policies, right?
The farmer's protest was entirely predictable to someone not a government bureaucrat swept up in their own greatness. These guys don't have the equipment or education to compete on a level (global) playing field. Nor do they have the money. Or access to either of those so that they can become competitive! Eventually the markets will work things out and, barring unforeseen influence, those farmer should be doing alright in 20 or 30 years. Too bad they have to starve for a few decades in the mean time.
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Well, 2 of the 3 you showed me weren't about fear and hype... they were about money and public health. One followed the science, the science SEEMS to be bearing out so far, and so cool. The other, for the money, relates all the way back to how sugar was deregulated in India in the late 90's, farmers' lives didn't improve because of it, and now over 2 decades later, SHOCKINGLY farmers don't want more of the same.
When money makes the decision, government policy breaks bad. Also too, I agree with you; when "fear and hype" does the same, same bad results.
When science leads the way, scientifically predicted outcomes start materializing. It's happening in the Netherlands. Its happened in several moments scattered throughout this pandemic. Its BEEN happening per the link I shared above from the World Resources Institute
....
Let's go with the part I bolded there. How bad do you think the decisions will be when it's tens-of-trillions of dollars being spent?
.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Would you agree that science leading the way is a good way to go Quark-a-lark-a-ding-dong? And is there enough evidence here from the AP and in other sources that SOME government policies, driven by science, are capable of achieving success? "Science leading the way" also includes social considerations, not just the math/physics/chemistry. Watch Planet of the Humans to see what you get when people say science is leading the way.
Now realize there's orders of magnitude more money involved in the GND decisions.
james014Aura wrote: So, last time I was here, I got a bit of info re: what the big problem is (animals can only survive a certain increase over a short time, and we're going to push that even in good scenarios), but something else has come up to pique my interest.
Carbon capture, and transitioning to renewable only.
To the many who are actually here in good faith, could you educate me again?
For CC, what's the general thing of that? Is it lots of machines or chemicals that bond with CO2 and release O2 or just take it out entirely? Or something else?
For renewable only, what's a bit deeper than the general picture? I know wind and solar are part of it, and we need better storage systems, but I'm not enough up on this to know deeper than what the general direction of the issue is.
I'll let CB answer you in full since his is likely to be a better reply for you. Suffice to say it's ######## expensive to do direct air capture at present and a real technical mess (if only a little more expensive) to do it at the source (say, at a natural gas power plant).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
james014Aura wrote: For CC, what's the general thing of that? Is it lots of machines or chemicals that bond with CO2 and release O2 or just take it out entirely? Or something else? Mostly, it is fiction.
The two primary concepts are;
1: Capture the CO2 as it is being emitted ('carbon capture and storage' / CCS). This is the idea behind the 'clean coal' nonsense. Theoretically, they separate the CO2 out from the other emissions and then store it rather than releasing it to the atmosphere. Problem is that the separation, transport, and storage components are each prohibitively expensive. Which is why there aren't any 'clean coal' plants.
2: Build giant 'CO2 scrubbers' for the entire planet... pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere and store it. This is even more economically infeasible than the previous.
No one has really studied whether there would be sufficient construction resources, storage sites, et cetera... because there just isn't any way to make this technology remotely feasible from a cost perspective currently.
james014Aura wrote: For renewable only, what's a bit deeper than the general picture? I know wind and solar are part of it, and we need better storage systems, but I'm not enough up on this to know deeper than what the general direction of the issue is. Several countries (i.e. Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Denmark) have already reached near 100% renewable using primarily hydro power. However, most countries do not have enough hydro resources to cover their needs. Either wind OR solar, on the other hand, could easily cover our global power requirements if fully developed. Over the past decade prices have fallen sufficiently that it would now cost less to power the world with wind and solar than it would to continue using fossil fuels.
The only 'real' issue with wind and solar is that they vary in availability. However, that can easily be solved in various ways;
1: Have stable backup power from hydro, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
2: Overbuild wind and solar generation and the electricity grid to allow areas producing excess power to cover areas falling short.
3: Build various forms of short and long term electricity storage to cover shortfalls.
4: Some combination of the above.
Most studies seem to indicate that currently it would be most cost effective to rely primarily on option 2 with options 1 & 3 only being needed a handful of times per year. However, that may change as battery costs continue to come down.
CBDunkerson wrote: Several countries (i.e. Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Denmark) have already reached near 100% renewable using primarily hydro power. Don't forget that Norway has offloaded a #### ####### of CO2 to the rest of the world by selling their oil and gas.
And then Europe in general (like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.) have off loaded a great portion of their carbon footprint to China and the developing world to make most of our stuff.
So while technically Norway is powered largely by renewable sources you really can't say their economy is Net Zero Carbon. No, not by a long shot.
.
CBDunkerson wrote: However, most countries do not have enough hydro resources to cover their needs. Either wind OR solar, on the other hand, could easily cover our global power requirements if fully developed. Over the past decade prices have fallen sufficiently that it would now cost less to power the world with wind and solar than it would to continue using fossil fuels.
The only 'real' issue with wind and solar is that they vary in availability. However, that can easily be solved in various ways;
1: Have stable backup power from hydro, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
2: Overbuild wind and solar generation and the electricity grid to allow areas producing excess power to cover areas falling short.
3: Build various forms of short and long term electricity storage to cover shortfalls.
4: Some combination of the above.
Most studies seem to indicate that currently it would be most cost effective to rely primarily on option 2 with options 1 & 3 only being needed a handful of times per year. However, that may change as battery costs continue to come down.
There's another real issue.
Namely, to build out this 'green' future is going to use up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then fly right past it to the tune of several hundred gigatons.
Lots and lots and lots and lots of concrete and steel and other metals and modern composites to mine and refine, all the while we'll still be pumping out fossil CO2 at a rate significantly close to the present value for that alone to eat up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then some.
Gotta paint the whole picture here. Otherwise there will be catastrophic reactions around 2035 or so over being lied to. People don't like that usually. Especially not when it makes them poor.
CBDunkerson wrote: (summarizing: an answer to my questions) Thanks! So, assuming a semi-concentrated effort, how long would it take for the world to implement the pure solar/hydro/wind power?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
james014Aura wrote: So, assuming a semi-concentrated effort, how long would it take for the world to implement the pure solar/hydro/wind power? If we continue to elect governments that do everything they can to prop up fossil fuels then it could take 50 years or so. We'd very likely go over +2°C warming by 2100.
If we continue to elect governments who do little or nothing to accelerate the transition then it will likely take about 30 years. Warming would most likely be right around +2°C by 2100.
If the whole world engaged in a massive program to transition as quickly as possible, comparable to the US mobilization upon entering WWII, then we might be able to do it in as little as 10 years. We'd very likely stay below the +2°C by 2100 warming target.
Disclaimer: The above estimates are for the point at which carbon emissions would be low enough to no longer be a threat. We will never reach zero. Just as humans still burn wood and ride horses, despite having technologically superior options, there will always be some niche usage of fossil fuels in the future.
Quark Blast wrote: So while technically Norway is powered largely by renewable sources you really can't say their economy is Net Zero Carbon. No, not by a long shot. I didn't say that.
For more than a century now fossil fuels have been the driving force of the global economy. Every time economic activity went up, so did fossil fuel usage. Every time economic activity went down (e.g. depressions) so did fossil fuel usage.
The linkage between fossil fuel consumption and economic activity was so strong that some had long claimed it was unbreakable. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen many individual states and countries have economic growth without increased fossil fuel consumption, and starting in 2016 the whole world reached that point... and the reason was that renewable energy increased instead. Thus, the 'unbreakable link' is between economic activity and energy generation... HOW the energy is generated doesn't matter.
Norway, and the rest of the world, continuing to make money off fossil fuel sales doesn't change the observed reality that renewables can replace fossil fuels and are now doing so. Countries can and do get by just fine without fossil fuels. Norway gets about 18% of its GDP from fossil fuel sales. Iceland gets about 0%... their biggest 'energy' export being fish oil.
Quark Blast wrote: There's another real issue.
Namely, to build out this 'green' future is going to use up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then fly right past it to the tune of several hundred gigatons.
Depends on which 'budget' you are talking about. The remaining CO2 which can be emitted before exceeding +1.5°C warming by 2100? The amount remaining before exceeding +2.0°C warming? Or some other factor?
If you mean +1.5°C then you are maybe correct that the CO2 emissions required to build out a global renewable infrastructure would put us over the limit... and it is almost certainly true that the continued fossil fuel emissions during the time required to transition would do so.
However, for +2.0°C it is entirely possible that we can complete the transition in time, and very likely that the emissions required just to build renewable infrastructure would not put us over.
CBDunkerson wrote: If we continue to elect governments that do everything they can to prop up fossil fuels then it could take 50 years or so. We'd very likely go over +2°C warming by 2100.
If we continue to elect governments who do little or nothing to accelerate the transition then it will likely take about 30 years. Warming would most likely be right around +2°C by 2100.
If the whole world engaged in a massive program to transition as quickly as possible, comparable to the US mobilization upon entering WWII, then we might be able to do it in as little as 10 years. We'd very likely stay below the +2°C by 2100 warming target.
Disclaimer: The above estimates are for the point at which carbon emissions would be low enough to no longer be a threat. We will never reach zero. Just as humans still burn wood and ride horses, despite having technologically superior options, there will always be some niche usage of fossil fuels in the future.
The only governments who will do everything they can to prop up fossil fuels are those most dependent on them. Like they have a choice to do otherwise.
To build out this green infrastructure is going to take metric tons of fossil fuel and release gigatons of CO2. There is massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out. Not to mention the related industrial processes for all the rare earth elements and numerous 'space age' compounds and alloys.
The more so when we take your "option 2" above; "Overbuild wind and solar generation and the electricity grid to allow areas producing excess power to cover areas falling short."
That's a lot of overbuilding. Most of which will be built using fossil fuels.
.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: So while technically Norway is powered largely by renewable sources you really can't say their economy is Net Zero Carbon. No, not by a long shot. I didn't say that.
Agreed. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did but was just pointing it out because people hold up Norway as an exemplar (which they are), however the full truth is that they are able to be so because they are surrounded by a world being run on fossil fuels (as you note).
Kind of like the promo ######## from the Rodale Institute. I applaud them for their commitment to fundamental research in organic practices but what they never openly tell us is that organic farming does as well as it does because it is a synthetic pesticide/insecticide/fungicide free 'island' in a 'sea' saturated with agri-chemicals. If the Rodale 'island' were in an organic 'sea' the world could effectively feed about 1 billion people; 5-7 billion if we were all near-vegetarians and could stop killing each other with regional (and the occasional global) wars.
.
CBDunkerson wrote: For more than a century now fossil fuels have been the driving force of the global economy. Every time economic activity went up, so did fossil fuel usage. Every time economic activity went down (e.g. depressions) so did fossil fuel usage.
The linkage between fossil fuel consumption and economic activity was so strong that some had long claimed it was unbreakable. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen many individual states and countries have economic growth without increased fossil fuel consumption, and starting in 2016 the whole world reached that point... and the reason was that renewable energy increased instead. Thus, the 'unbreakable link' is between economic activity and energy generation... HOW the energy is generated doesn't matter.
Norway, and the rest of the world, continuing to make money off fossil fuel sales doesn't change the observed reality that renewables can replace fossil fuels and are now doing so. Countries can and do get by just fine without fossil fuels. Norway gets about 18% of its GDP from fossil fuel sales. Iceland gets about 0%... their biggest 'energy' export being fish oil.
I'd like to see how long it takes Norway to get to 0%. I could make the argument that the USA has dropped it's fossil fuel consumption by a proportionally greater amount over virtually any other 'Western' country these past two decades. But what we've really done is switch coal to natural gas (mostly) and a few other things (the largest of which is let China make our stuff for us using coal power, just like Norway has done/is doing).
Norway isn't self-sufficient! They've gotten where they are by selling oil and gas to others and by letting the developing world make their things using fossil fuel. It also doesn't hurt that Norway is a per capita winner in the hydro power lottery. And they're a tiny nation.
In short:
Norway is analogous to the Rodale Institute organic 'island'.
.
CBDunkerson wrote: Quark Blast wrote: There's another real issue.
Namely, to build out this 'green' future is going to use up our remaining CO2 "budget" and then fly right past it to the tune of several hundred gigatons.
Depends on which 'budget' you are talking about. The remaining CO2 which can be emitted before exceeding +1.5°C warming by 2100? The amount remaining before exceeding +2.0°C warming? Or some other factor?
If you mean +1.5°C then you are maybe correct that the CO2 emissions required to build out a global renewable infrastructure would put us over the limit... and it is almost certainly true that the continued fossil fuel emissions during the time required to transition would do so.
However, for +2.0°C it is entirely possible that we can complete the transition in time, and very likely that the emissions required just to build renewable infrastructure would not put us over.
Tell me:
Which of those scenarios -( +1.5C and +2.0°C )- expressly account for climate Tipping Elements?
Also, does this economic math account for the massive Coronavirus-induced inflation we're setting ourselves up for?
A little hard to build like WWII when you're an obviously ##### investment. Who will loan out hundreds of billions of dollars so that they can get paid back with inflated currency?
Quark Blast wrote: To build out this green infrastructure is going to take metric tons of fossil fuel and release gigatons of CO2. There is massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out. No.
The vast majority of that renewable energy will come from solar and wind power... which use virtually no concrete. Steel is used in wind turbines and concentrated solar plants, but not significantly for the dominant photovoltaic power plants.
Put another way, cities currently take up about nine times as much of the Earth's surface area (~1.8 million sq miles) as would be required to generate all of our energy needs from photovoltaic solar power. The cities use massive amounts of steel and concrete per square mile... the photovoltaic solar would use virtually none.
The amount of steel needed to convert the world to renewable energy is tiny compared to past development. The amount of concrete required is negligible. Indeed, we will use less steel and concrete converting to renewable energy than we would if we continued to rely on fossil fuels.
Quark Blast wrote: That's a lot of overbuilding. Most of which will be built using fossil fuels. As our energy production shifts to renewable power the construction driven by that energy will, obviously, also shift. So no, most renewable power overcapacity will NOT be built using fossil fuels... by the time we're building excess renewable power to cover rare exception scenarios most of that construction will, again obviously, be driven by renewable energy.
Quark Blast wrote: Which of those scenarios -( +1.5C and +2.0°C )- expressly account for climate Tipping Elements? Given that we have already passed some climate 'tipping elements' (e.g. onset of ice albedo feedback loop) BOTH of those scenarios, and indeed all possible scenarios, "expressly account for climate Tipping Elements".
Quark Blast wrote: Also, does this economic math account for the massive Coronavirus-induced inflation we're setting ourselves up for?
A little hard to build like WWII when you're an obviously ##### investment. Who will loan out hundreds of billions of dollars so that they can get paid back with inflated currency?
Setting aside the fact that the neo-libertarian economic ideas you seem to be referring to are complete nonsense... you are apparently using 'us' as the United States. For global warming we need to be thinking about 'us' as the whole planet. If, as you seem to be implying, the United States is lending money to its own detriment... surely others are therefore benefiting by receiving these loans? If we then accept your statement that the United States has made progress "over virtually any other 'Western' country" wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to help other countries 'catch up'?
CB wrote: The vast majority of that renewable energy will come from solar and wind power... which use virtually no concrete. Steel is used in wind turbines and concentrated solar plants, but not significantly for the dominant photovoltaic power plants. No, because we are trying to front-load the transition so late in the game (Remember, we should've been starting this process in earnest circa 1999), it means we will be building more than half of this green infrastructure on fossil fuels.
You say these efforts are "tiny" compared to the past but comparisons to the past is hand-wavery at its finest. What we need to know is how much CO2 will be emitted in this process, how long it will take, and how many billions of people will be participating in it.
In short, if we use up our remaining CO2 budget, then go past it by hundreds of gigatons, and go into massive debt to get there, that has some pretty serious implications on what the near future will look like. "Global" wars have been fought over for less.
.
CB wrote: Given that we have already passed some climate 'tipping elements' (e.g. onset of ice albedo feedback loop) BOTH of those scenarios, and indeed all possible scenarios, "expressly account for climate Tipping Elements". If that were true people would've stopped talking seriously about a +1.5°C year 2100 over a decade ago. But as recently as 2018 the IPCC doubled down on this goal.
A +1.5°C year 2100 is full-on pipe dream. More so than scaled nuclear fusion or DAC CC&S.
Yet people keep modeling it like it's a possible thing. And you say my arguments are "nonsense"?!
:D
.
CB wrote: Setting aside the fact that the neo-libertarian economic ideas you seem to be referring to are complete nonsense... you are apparently using 'us' as the United States. For global warming we need to be thinking about 'us' as the whole planet. If, as you seem to be implying, the United States is lending money to its own detriment... surely others are therefore benefiting by receiving these loans? If we then accept your statement that the United States has made progress "over virtually any other 'Western' country" wouldn't it be a GOOD thing to help other countries 'catch up'? When you open your argument with an unwarranted smear-attempt by bringing in imagined forbidden word aspersions you're not really attempting to dialog are you child?
But to your final point:
Yes, it would be good. Unfortunately we won't be able to afford to help.
Quark Blast wrote: CB wrote: The vast majority of that renewable energy will come from solar and wind power... which use virtually no concrete. Steel is used in wind turbines and concentrated solar plants, but not significantly for the dominant photovoltaic power plants. No, because we are trying to front-load the transition so late in the game The amount of concrete and steel required to build wind and solar power does not change significantly based on when they are built.
Quark Blast wrote: You say these efforts are "tiny" compared to the past but comparisons to the past is hand-wavery at its finest. I was referring, of course, to your statement, "There is massive, massive unlike anything the world has known, concrete and steel production necessary for this build out."
Which, yes, is 'hand-wavery'... but also just completely false. As explained, wind and solar will use virtually no concrete and very little steel in comparison to countless other things 'the world has known'.
Quark Blast wrote: (Remember, we should've been starting this process in earnest circa 1999), it means we will be building more than half of this green infrastructure on fossil fuels. This isn't logically possible.
Say we get to the point where over 50% of our energy needs are supplied by renewables. From that point onwards all further renewable power will be built primarily using existing renewable energy... and since the amount of energy the human race requires grows over time (due to population growth and increasing average standard of living) the portion built primarily with renewable power will be larger than the portion built primarily with fossil fuels.
Again, this would be true regardless of when the transition took place. The problem with delaying the transition is not that it somehow magically alters the nature of basic math and logic, but with all the CO2 emitted prior to completion that could have been avoided.
CB wrote: Given that we have already passed some climate 'tipping elements' (e.g. onset of ice albedo feedback loop) BOTH of those scenarios, and indeed all possible scenarios, "expressly account for climate Tipping Elements". Quark Blast wrote: If that were true people would've stopped talking seriously about a +1.5°C year 2100 over a decade ago. It is demonstrably true that we have passed the onset of the ice albedo feedback loop.
Your claim that this would somehow prevent people from doing things they have, in fact, done is therefore inherently false.
|
