Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

8 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

https://theaseanpost.com/article/coral-reefs-are-facing-extinction

 

90% by 2030

Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard. 

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you. 

it's more of a problem in the developing world, in the developed world we've already lowered the birth rate to around 2 per family.

You said no one calls out China and India, I've already called out India and China for their reliance on coal (as well as Australia) and they definitely have a population density as well as air pollution problem.

 

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

9 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

The use of "climate denial movement" was deliberate. It was intended to differentiate between honest skeptics (in general people who seek more evidence and then will allow the evidence to guide them) and deniers (for lack of a better term) who will essentially reject any or all evidence that does not confirm their preferred views. There is a difference and that difference is critical.

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

the popularity of almond milk, coconut milk, avocado milk, etc., probably has a lot to do with it- consider how many commercials you see for those and none for dairy milk (I still remember the old days with the "Got Milk" commercials, you dont see them anymore.)  Starbucks has also switched to plant-based milk.

 

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

[LibertyBell]

Just now, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

having loved burgers for years (and only quitting them because of my health), I can understand that sentiment!

 

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

4 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

it's more of a problem in the developing world, in the developed world we've already lowered the birth rate to around 2 per family.

 

This is correct. But the way for those countries to move from "developing" to "developed" is through the use of fossil fuels. Something that you seem to want to deny them.

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

This is correct. But the way for those countries to move from "developing" to "developed" is through the use of fossil fuels. Something that you seem to want to deny them.

I originally thought that way also, but I've seen that wind and solar are both less expensive than fossil fuels now, so they should probably be transitioning over too.  That would improve their air pollution problems quite a bit.

I'd throw nuclear in there also if I was confident that developing countries could properly safeguard nuclear reactors.....

 

 

[donsutherland1]

3 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

The definitions are universal. If, for example, a scientist/group of scientists discovers or identifies a new natural mechanism that can credibly explain at least some of the ongoing observed warming that cannot currently be attributed to natural forcings, then of course it would need to be given due consideration. Science is an iterative process. Areas of uncertainty e.g., especially with respect to some feedbacks, remain to be resolved.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

2 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I originally thought that way also, but I've seen that wind and solar are both less expensive than fossil fuels now, so they should probably be transitioning over too.  That would improve their air pollution problems quite a bit.

I'd throw nuclear in there also if I was confident that developing countries could properly safeguard nuclear reactors.....

 

 

Wind and solar are not reliable. Energy needs to be reliable. Nuclear is a big win for everyone, and the technology available today makes it very safe. 

[LibertyBell]

1 minute ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Wind and solar are not reliable. Energy needs to be reliable. Nuclear is a big win for everyone, and the technology available today makes it very safe. 

Hopefully a lot safer than it was in the days of Three Mile Island and Shoreham.

We also need to include the possibility of nuclear reactors as military/terrorist targets.  That's one reason I would not put nuclear reactors near big cities.

[SnoSki14]

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I originally thought that way also, but I've seen that wind and solar are both less expensive than fossil fuels now, so they should probably be transitioning over too.

 

My belief is that in due time everyone will transition over simply from market forces alone. 

Not sure when we'll get to net zero emissions but there's always a new breakthrough on the horizon nuclear fusion being the holy grail of them all. 

That doesn't mean the transition period won't be rough though. I think a lot of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars from weather related disasters will be commonplace for a few decades before everything stabilizes.

I don't think it'll be the end of the world as some proclaim. 

[donsutherland1]

Perhaps this is one reason climate change deniers have stepped up their attacks on climate scientists, as well as the volume of their disinformation on Social Media and other outlets that still disseminate their position.

From the Yale University Climate Change Communication Program:

Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/

In short, science is gaining ground when it comes to Americans' views of climate change. As that process continues to play out, public support for effective policies aimed at making a credible start to addressing the challenge of climate change could reach critical mass. At that point, the defense of the status quo could disintegrate, as support of the status quo could hinder electoral success.

[donsutherland1]

The McKinsey Global Institute's report on climate change and its impacts:

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business Functions/Sustainability/Our Insights/Climate risk and response Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts/MGI-Climate-risk-and-response-vF.ashx

[Vice-Regent]

6 hours ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you. 

Right but for the wrong reasons. Curtailing overpopulation through personal decisions just serves as palliative care for your posterity at this juncture will not turn our trajectory away from resource overshoot or rather for the more sensible among us - extinction.

Have fun whistling past your 2030 graveyard because dieing in 2050 will just be that much better.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

43 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Right but for the wrong reasons. Curtailing overpopulation through personal decisions just serves as palliative care for your posterity at this juncture will not turn our trajectory away from resource overshoot or rather for the more sensible among us - extinction.

Have fun whistling past your 2030 graveyard because dieing in 2050 will just be that much better.

Oh sweet merciful crap. Yes...we'll all be dead by 2050. Just like every other doomsday prediction that has come true. Oh wait...

If my eyes rolled any further to the back of my head I could see Russia from my house.

Seriously though. The more people who believe in this that choose not to procreate the better we will all be going forward. So by all means have at it. Or actually don't "have at it" as the case may be.

[Vice-Regent]

3 minutes ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Oh sweet merciful crap. Yes...we'll all be dead by 2050. Just like every other doomsday prediction that has come true. Oh wait...

If my eyes rolled any further to the back of my head I could see Russia from my house.

Seriously though. The more people who believe in this that choose not to procreate the better we will all be going forward. So by all means have at it. Or actually don't "have at it" as the case may be.

Well better get back into the hall and steer this ship away from disaster.

[bobjohnsonforthehall]

28 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Well better get back into the hall and steer this ship away from disaster.

Or it's not headed towards disaster.

[Vice-Regent]

7 hours ago, bobjohnsonforthehall said:

Or it's not headed towards disaster.

A.) Why are we not headed towards disaster?

B.) Why is global warming a non-threat? Quite the contrary it appears to be a threat multiplier at a time when we are most vulnerable.

[Vice-Regent]

 

[etudiant]

A quick look at the record indicates that the 1974-75 fire season in Australia was by far the worst in terms of acreage, with over 100 million acres burned. No other year comes close.

The burn to date for this season is about 15 million acres, still a huge area, but again not in the same league.

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, etudiant said:

A quick look at the record indicates that the 1974-75 fire season in Australia was by far the worst in terms of acreage, with over 100 million acres burned. No other year comes close.

The burn to date for this season is about 15 million acres, still a huge area, but again not in the same league.

I would wager there is less to burn per acre? Thoughts? On a positive note the moistening trend should move from West Australia to the deep south going forward.

[chubbs]

13 hours ago, etudiant said:

A quick look at the record indicates that the 1974-75 fire season in Australia was by far the worst in terms of acreage, with over 100 million acres burned. No other year comes close.

The burn to date for this season is about 15 million acres, still a huge area, but again not in the same league.

Watch the video, Australia is a big country. Fires in unpopulated dryland is not the same as fire in forested SE with more towns, people. 

[etudiant]

4 hours ago, chubbs said:

Watch the video, Australia is a big country. Fires in unpopulated dryland is not the same as fire in forested SE with more towns, people. 

Absolutely correct on the human impact, 74/75 was modest, the worst was in 2009, when 171 people died in Victoria.

[LibertyBell]

On 1/18/2020 at 6:46 AM, WestBabylonWeather said:

Pew research actually did a study on the 3 major networks. MSNBC actually took the crown for what you speak. You are better off saying you just don’t like Fox News bias and you prefer a left leaning bias of another network, that’s more honest. All news sources lean left or right, which I hate but that’s what for profit corporate media is  

according to pew research

CNN is 55% fact and 45% opinion

Fox is 45% fact and 55% opinion

MSNBC is 15% fact and 85% opinion, taking the crown home for the win, gotta be proud  

MSNBC beats them all for propaganda. They all spread propaganda though, whether they lean left or right it’s what for profit media does  

so fox is not all that bad you just don’t prefer the way they lean. 
 

Usually i wouldn’t respond to this because these conversations always go south but I’ll also say freely throwing around the word nazi is ridiculous but I guess that’s where we are today. Kinda weird. 
 

I actually dont watch any of them for news.  Since I was in grade school, all I've ever watched is PBS for news, they always provide the most in depth level of coverage from everything from politics to the environment.  I find them absolutely amazing (ditto for their documentaries.)  BBC America is up there too.

 

[chubbs]

On 1/30/2020 at 7:09 PM, WestBabylonWeather said:

Is the earth expected to have the same climate always? Things will happen that will cause climate shifts

I read something today that the earth is 55 degrees warmer than it should be with its proximity to the sun and it’s the greenhouse gasses that make it habitable. So what I’m trying to say is this: are the greenhouse gasses supposed to stay at the same levels for the rest of earths existence? I don’t think thats possible. Shifts are going to happen.
 

Normal is only what we perceive as normal since record keeping began rather recently. 
 

if the earths .04% CO2 content causes a certain global temperature mean we can’t expect it to stay like that forever, it’s a scientific impossibility. the percentages of greenhouse gasses will always change and cause climate shifts. I think that’s the science aspect of it. What caused the mini ice age? 
 

that being said we need clean energy either way. I think nuclear is the answer if it was full proof  

 

I just think there’s so much more to climate change then saying humans are the cause. Part of the problem? Sure. The cause? Not entirely 
 

the conversation is far from over and the science is NOT settled. IMO

 

not a climate expert or scientist. Just my thoughts. 

You are right. The earth's climate varies.  When CO2 is high - hothouse; when CO2 is low - ice age. The change we are causing now is no big deal to the planet as a whole. It will shrug it off and keep on ticking. It may be problematic to us and other species though due to the speed at which it is occurring. When we came out of the last ice age the earth warmed at a rate of roughly 1C per 1000 years, currently we are warming at 1C per 50 years. During the last ice age - 2 million hunter gatherers were able to adapt - they could move as ecosystems changed. Different situation today.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 1/17/2020 at 5:41 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Perhaps this is one reason climate change deniers have stepped up their attacks on climate scientists, as well as the volume of their disinformation on Social Media and other outlets that still disseminate their position.

From the Yale University Climate Change Communication Program:

Our latest survey (November 2019) finds that the Alarmed segment is at an all-time high (31%). The Alarmed segment has nearly tripled in size since October 2014. Conversely, the Dismissive (10%) and Doubtful (10%) segments have each decreased over the past five years.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/

In short, science is gaining ground when it comes to Americans' views of climate change. As that process continues to play out, public support for effective policies aimed at making a credible start to addressing the challenge of climate change could reach critical mass. At that point, the defense of the status quo could disintegrate, as support of the status quo could hinder electoral success.

Bingo!

Nothing motivates would-be noblemen and state's people like the moods of their constituency - the only other way around that in a democratic voter-society is cheating. Thank god there's no ...

Wait a sec -

Humor aside, if the ballast of lever pullers abandon the profligate presumption of entitlement to natural resources... finally connecting with the consequence-causality circuitry [ add finite science here .. ], the complexion of the office seeker is forced to change.   

But note I said 'complexion.' 

Execution in keeping with those promises that answer to ethos is entirely up to institutions put in place over the generations, charged with the responsibility to ensure those elected officials are 'owning up' ... It's a good thing we haven't seen any attempt at the dissolution of those agencies and institution, then, right ?

Wait a sec -  

  

The total model of corruption could not be more patently clearly afoot in IR -based societies,.  And, I still posit that the main reason why such brazen antics go down, and there is only passive moral recovery or even much vitriol at all, is because of post-Industrial Revolution giving rise to conveniences that rescue the existential state of society at all levels, from having to eat the shit of their own mistakes.  But, the environment in that metaphor, quite succinctly becomes the dumping ground. In a baser 101 philosophical perspective:  nature is about balancing positive and negatives... That's it.  All of reality exist because at some quantum Plank scale...there is an imbalance that is attempting to get to neutral. That tug of war integrates to a Universe of time...space... energy and your life!  And everything and anything that can be perceived happens because of that scaffold.  So, it is quite logical to assume that 5 billion Industrial breast feeders are getting fat, something else has to be getting skinny.   Metaphors are fun...     

Simple terms, if we lived in a reality where mistakes resulted in pain? Oh f yeah, people would sit up and take notice ...immediately.   But the IR wipes humanity ass, by gobbling up even more resources to "save" them from having to conserve .. protecting all from seeing the consequences.  Thus, the ease at convenience to deny, becomes self-reinforcing: 'I denied it last week, I got a raise, therefore, denial is right.'   And that becomes a runaway selfish culture among many other abhorrent characters. 

[rclab]

10 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Bingo!

Nothing motivates would-be noblemen and state's people like the moods of their constituency - the only other way around that in a democratic voter-society is cheating. Thank god there's no ...

Wait a sec -

Humor aside, if the ballast of lever pullers abandon the profligate presumption of entitlement to natural resources... finally connecting with the consequence-causality circuitry [ add finite science here .. ], the complexion of the office seeker is forced to change.   

But note I said 'complexion.' 

Execution in keeping with those promises that answer to ethos is entirely up to institutions put in place over the generations, charged with the responsibility to ensure those elected officials are 'owning up' ... It's a good thing we haven't seen any attempt at the dissolution of those agencies and institution, then, right ?

Wait a sec -  

  

The total model of corruption could not be more patently clearly afoot in IR -based societies,.  And, I still posit that the main reason why such brazen antics go down, and there is only passive moral recovery or even much vitriol at all, is because of post-Industrial Revolution giving rise to conveniences that rescue the existential state of society at all levels, from having to eat the shit of their own mistakes.  But, the environment in that metaphor, quite succinctly becomes the dumping ground. In a baser 101 philosophical perspective:  nature is about balancing positive and negatives... That's it.  All of reality exist because at some quantum Plank scale...there is an imbalance that is attempting to get to neutral. That tug of war integrates to a Universe of time...space... energy and your life!  And everything and anything that can be perceived happens because of that scaffold.  So, it is quite logical to assume that 5 billion Industrial breast feeders are getting fat, something else has to be getting skinny.   Metaphors are fun...     

Simple terms, if we lived in a reality where mistakes resulted in pain? Oh f yeah, people would sit up and take notice ...immediately.   But the IR wipes humanity ass, by gobbling up even more resources to "save" them from having to conserve .. protecting all from seeing the consequences.  Thus, the ease at convenience to deny, becomes self-reinforcing: 'I denied it last week, I got a raise, therefore, denial is right.'   And that becomes a runaway selfish culture among many other abhorrent characters. 

The four most frightening words out of the over four hundred you wrote were “nature is about balancing” . Billy S. Said it best “What Fools These Mortals Be” .... as we end up in a never ending midsummers nightmare. As always ....

[87storms]

it's fascinating to me how many people are so desperate to refute man made climate change and its impacts.  i have an idea...why don't we just pretend it exists just to be on the safe side?

[donsutherland1]

On February 6, 2020, NBC News reported:

Facebook groups that routinely traffic in anti-vaccination propaganda have become a resource for people seeking out a wide variety of medical information — including about the ongoing flu season.

Facebook hosts a vast network of groups that trade in false health information. On “Stop Mandatory Vaccination,” one of the largest known health misinformation groups with more than 178,000 members, people have solicited advice for how to deal with the flu. Members of the group have previously spread conspiracies that outbreaks of preventable diseases are “hoaxes” perpetrated by the government, and use the groups to mass-contact parents whose children have died and suggest without evidence that vaccines may be to blame.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-anti-vaxxers-pushed-mom-not-give-her-son-tamiflu-n1131936

Unfortunately, dubious groups such as those cited in the article are not limited to any particular field. Indeed, one sees a vibrant ecosystem of such actors and groups, all devoted to sowing doubt about anthropogenic climate change or outright denying it despite the overwhelming evidence for it.

One useful approach for identifying disinformation related to climate change is to examine any claims that seen novel, dismiss climate change, or with which one is unfamiliar. One should check for peer-reviewed research that supports the claim (recent research is stronger than old research that may have been superseded). If such support is found, the claim is credible. If not, it should be viewed as speculative or, at best, a hypothesis that has yet to be tested.

[LibertyBell]

11 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

On February 6, 2020, NBC News reported:

Facebook groups that routinely traffic in anti-vaccination propaganda have become a resource for people seeking out a wide variety of medical information — including about the ongoing flu season.

Facebook hosts a vast network of groups that trade in false health information. On “Stop Mandatory Vaccination,” one of the largest known health misinformation groups with more than 178,000 members, people have solicited advice for how to deal with the flu. Members of the group have previously spread conspiracies that outbreaks of preventable diseases are “hoaxes” perpetrated by the government, and use the groups to mass-contact parents whose children have died and suggest without evidence that vaccines may be to blame.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-anti-vaxxers-pushed-mom-not-give-her-son-tamiflu-n1131936

Unfortunately, dubious groups such as those cited in the article are not limited to any particular field. Indeed, one sees a vibrant ecosystem of such actors and groups, all devoted to sowing doubt about anthropogenic climate change or outright denying it despite the overwhelming evidence for it.

One useful approach for identifying disinformation related to climate change is to examine any claims that seen novel, dismiss climate change, or with which one is unfamiliar. One should check for peer-reviewed research that supports the claim (recent research is stronger than old research that may have been superseded). If such support is found, the claim is credible. If not, it should be viewed as speculative or, at best, a hypothesis that has yet to be tested.

Antarctica just saw its highest temp ever recorded- 65.1 and a rather large slab of ice just fell into the ocean there (it was about 130 ft tall.)

On another issue,. I just saw a 30 min documentary on HBO about the Fukushima disaster and what they revealed was horrendous.  Because of the impending 2020 Tokyo Olympics, Japan has been rushing to clean up after the fall out from Fukushima and they've done a really bad job.  They hired unemployed and homeless people to do the "clean up" and since 70% of the area that is affected is forested and mountainous, it cant be cleaned properly.  The workers weren't even wearing protective gear and weren't told about the dangers, they were in their street clothes.  And they piled up 16 million black bags of radioactive contaminants in public areas and told people it was "safe" to come back even though the area is constantly being recontaminated whenever there is heavy rain and runoff.  The Japanese government has tried to downplay the dangers and raised the maximum safe exposure 20x from 1 milliseviert like the rest of the world to 20 millisevierts, which scientists and medical researchers say represents a 30% higher risk of getting leukemia after 5 years of exposure, which compounds yearly (so it's 60% higher after 10 years.)  They told their workers not to worry about the clean up and to just make the area "look good".  Meanwhile children still have to go for yearly cancer checks and the food has to be regularly screened.  The researchers who went there to see what was going on found some areas with up to 70 milliseviert radiation levels (areas along the path of the Olympic torch!)  The former prime minister who was in charge when Fukushima melted down said that the reactor should never have been built and the tsunami changed his mind because he didn't listen to scientists who told him not to build it back in the 90s.  The current government has hired propaganda people because they dont have the numbers to back up how horrendous this so-called "clean up" has been, they are just trying to show their best face for the Olympics (which might be derailed anyway because of coronavirus.)  The former reactor is still contaminated and prone to further accidents and has to be doused constantly with sea water, which creates its own set of problems as the contaminated water has been mixing with the ground water and making it back into the ocean.  A nuclear chemist said the area isn't safe for being in for more than 30 min or so.

I guess this is why Japan has just commissioned 22 new coal plants :-(

Saw a recent report showing lower life expectancy and higher rates of asthma in areas with industrial fossil fuel plants like in coastal Rhode Island.  Local residents have now organized and are politically focused on moving these plants out of their neighborhoods!

On a more positive note, the UK has passed a law to ban all fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2035 and NY is considering doing the same thing for 2040.