Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[LibertyBell]

19 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/big-oil-and-gas-kept-a-dirty-secret-for-decades-now-they-may-pay-the-price?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

Read about Donziger though, there's a bunch of federal judges willing to do the bidding of the cartels and arrest the lawyers who sue them.

[LibertyBell]

23 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

I’m sure someone has brought this up in this thread before but I wrote about this as the solution in college and still believe it’s where we should put most of our eggs. My argument in college was that climate change isn’t the issue but where we chose to live is.  The main reason I still support that stance is that while it’s 99% likely that we’re the cause of climate change what if we’re not? Then all the money we’re spending to prevent would have been wasted. 
 

They’re are other arguments to made about some of the horrible places we’ve decided to over populate as well, ie killing the Colorado river  

Thoughts?
 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220310-the-illinois-town-valmeyer-could-be-a-model-for-relocation

Lake Powell looks like it's not going to be functional as a reservoir for much longer.  Lake Mead looks like its water levels are going down too.

Overpopulation is a big problem but the population is starting to stabilize and the latest predictions state that it won't get over 10 billion, which is around the earth's carrying capacity.

[Typhoon Tip]

On 3/17/2022 at 3:05 AM, Buckeyes_Suck said:

I’m sure someone has brought this up in this thread before but I wrote about this as the solution in college and still believe it’s where we should put most of our eggs. My argument in college was that climate change isn’t the issue but where we chose to live is.  The main reason I still support that stance is that while it’s 99% likely that we’re the cause of climate change what if we’re not? Then all the money we’re spending to prevent would have been wasted. 
 

They’re are other arguments to made about some of the horrible places we’ve decided to over populate as well, ie killing the Colorado river  

Thoughts?
 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220310-the-illinois-town-valmeyer-could-be-a-model-for-relocation

Well ... you did encourage "Thoughts?"  so 

Two retorts:

One, so what?  I don't understand this logic, because it strikes me as not understanding, or taking seriously ...or believing ...what ever is the misconception,  the inevitability of the crisis.  One that ends in finite circumstance, the other side of which money is irrelevant.  

It is one where we and countless other species are dead.  Because of that...

Two, I don't believe choice of geography is any kind of panacea to the crisis of the CC.  Metaphor:  We don't go to the top of the hill and continue to engage in aspects that cause the water to rise, thinking we "might" not be causing the flood.

We stop what we are doing until that is proven, because what is at stake, is your death. 

This is not a human problem.   This is an Earth biosphere problem.  We are inextricably dependent upon the vitality of countless interacting life.  CC is killing at all scales along the spectrum, because it is occurring faster than adaptation rates.  D(t) > d(evolution) = extinction.  That is a basic equation that has played out on this planet, based upon all scientific paleoclimatology and epoch reconciliation studies there are, over and over and over again.  So, what are we doing?  we are observing the d(T) > adaptation rates ..which is tantamount to exceeding evolution.  

This can't end well, at global scale.

As an afterthought ... this weird money thing. Money is an illusion. It is not real.  It is only become socially, we all agree it has value - it does not have any intrinsic realness in/to Nature.   It is not a fundamental law, like PV=NRT, or E=MC2, or C2 = A2 + B2 ... the 7 basic principles of quantum mechanics, without the consistency of which everything as we know them break down.  

It all just comes back to the same aspect we hammered page and pages  to years ago.  This is all because climate change and it's perils are too slow moving for the human senses to compel a change.   That's it.  At the individual level ...integrating the whole groups, integrating the population masses, CC has too few real time live "corporeal advocates"   If one walked out their front door in the morning, and immediately was punched in the nose by heat fist, they probably wouldn't take a whole week, much less 50 years, to change their f point of view on the veracity of CC. 

I keep hearing suggestions and narratives that really dance around acceptance.   We can't do what we have been doing.  That is the truth. Nothing else.  Moving the problem from one location to another, within the same total manifold of Earth's system, does nothing to fix the Globally integrated problem.  Since we know mathematically human activity is at least contributing, we can't keep doing it in the off chance that the amount allows us to keep profligating.  The logical thing to do, is stop doing it until you can prove otherwise. 

[csnavywx]

 

Yikes at the new CERES data. +1.5W/m2 imbalance last year. +1.2 W/m2 trend gives about +0.9C of equilibrium warming, if my back of the envelope calculation is correct. We've already probably blown +2C and at this rate of emissions, I wouldn't be shocked to see a sizeable uptick in the rate of warming this decade.

[chubbs]

5 hours ago, csnavywx said:

 

Yikes at the new CERES data. +1.5W/m2 imbalance last year. +1.2 W/m2 trend gives about +0.9C of equilibrium warming, if my back of the envelope calculation is correct. We've already probably blown +2C and at this rate of emissions, I wouldn't be shocked to see a sizeable uptick in the rate of warming this decade.

Matches up with re-analysis data indicating a roughly 9-month warming period now, despite the nina. Wondering if this is recovery from the Australian fire aerosol. In any case, the next nino is going to find an atmosphere that can hold more heat than 2016.

[Buckeyes_Suck]

On 3/18/2022 at 2:24 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

Well ... you did encourage "Thoughts?"  so 

Two retorts:

One, so what?  I don't understand this logic, because it strikes me as not understanding, or taking seriously ...or believing ...what ever is the misconception,  the inevitability of the crisis.  One that ends in finite circumstance, the other side of which money is irrelevant.  

It is one where we and countless other species are dead.  Because of that...

Two, I don't believe choice of geography is any kind of panacea to the crisis of the CC.  Metaphor:  We don't go to the top of the hill and continue to engage in aspects that cause the water to rise, thinking we "might" not be causing the flood.

We stop what we are doing until that is proven, because what is at stake, is your death. 

This is not a human problem.   This is an Earth biosphere problem.  We are inextricably dependent upon the vitality of countless interacting life.  CC is killing at all scales along the spectrum, because it is occurring faster than adaptation rates.  D(t) > d(evolution) = extinction.  That is a basic equation that has played out on this planet, based upon all scientific paleoclimatology and epoch reconciliation studies there are, over and over and over again.  So, what are we doing?  we are observing the d(T) > adaptation rates ..which is tantamount to exceeding evolution.  

This can't end well, at global scale.

As an afterthought ... this weird money thing. Money is an illusion. It is not real.  It is only become socially, we all agree it has value - it does not have any intrinsic realness in/to Nature.   It is not a fundamental law, like PV=NRT, or E=MC2, or C2 = A2 + B2 ... the 7 basic principles of quantum mechanics, without the consistency of which everything as we know them break down.  

It all just comes back to the same aspect we hammered page and pages  to years ago.  This is all because climate change and it's perils are too slow moving for the human senses to compel a change.   That's it.  At the individual level ...integrating the whole groups, integrating the population masses, CC has too few real time live "corporeal advocates"   If one walked out their front door in the morning, and immediately was punched in the nose by heat fist, they probably wouldn't take a whole week, much less 50 years, to change their f point of view on the veracity of CC. 

I keep hearing suggestions and narratives that really dance around acceptance.   We can't do what we have been doing.  That is the truth. Nothing else.  Moving the problem from one location to another, within the same total manifold of Earth's system, does nothing to fix the Globally integrated problem.  Since we know mathematically human activity is at least contributing, we can't keep doing it in the off chance that the amount allows us to keep profligating.  The logical thing to do, is stop doing it until you can prove otherwise. 

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

 

Economic pressure will stop fossil fuel consumption as renewable are about at equal cost now and will get cheaper while fossil fuels will only get more expensive.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

5 hours ago, chubbs said:

Matches up with re-analysis data indicating a roughly 9-month warming period now, despite the nina. Wondering if this is recovery from the Australian fire aerosol. In any case, the next nino is going to find an atmosphere that can hold more heat than 2016.

 

This is troubling ..

But it is also indirectly - I believe - related to the same aspects that have decoupled the ENSO states from the circulation modes during recent winters. 

The energy observation is a different metric.. But that increasing is consistent with decoupling in the 'intuitive' sense - just probably needs the geophysical proof/mathematics

But the decoupling thing has been intriguing in its own rights.  This season spent some 5 .. 6 weeks with only weakly identifiable La Nina circulation foot-print.   This type of decoupling has taken place during both warm(cool) ENSO events, with increasing frequency, spanning the last 15 or so years. 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

Economic pressure will stop fossil fuel consumption as renewable are about at equal cost now and will get cheaper while fossil fuels will only get more expensive.

 

Completely agree, and I think that Fusion will become commercialized sometime in the next 50 years only further pushing that trend. The key will be that we share that tech globally. 

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. #1 The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. #2 That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly #3 adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

So to my original point, #4 should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

 

You just repeated your same mantra back to us.  I'll try to address some stand outs then I'll move along from this conversation. 

#1  In short, it is preventable; the solution is just not desirable...  and that's what's really at stake.  Those types of questions... 'why should we, if they won't' or another one of my favorites, 'we'll be dead before it matters' ( fecklessly immoral) ...  these are all really stall tactics. They defer acceptance, or allow continued profligate practices by sending the issues spinning in discussion endlessly...  Bargaining is sometimes referred.  Unfortunately, the reality is probably not tenable by the minds of most - we are already doomed.  That's probably it.  We cannot change the momentum of 8 billion per capital species mass, as quickly as it necessarily must change.  

#2 That does not alter the truth of the problem - it only makes the point. Anthropomorphic activity is forcing environmental break downs - and it's not just CC by the way..  There are major toxicity problems ... land and sea.  Where does one begin. Human male sperm counts are down all over the world - which may not be a bad thing, ironically.  But microplastics... Narrow temperature tolerant phytoplankton die offs in the ocean.  It comes across as though the scope of knowledge/awareness isn't there frankly.  This has a ginormous spectrum of components.

#3  The Earth is presently in a mass extinction event ... That is biological fact, not mere conjecture. And the reason, based upon all metrics of science in the cause-and-effect relationship, is that climate is changing faster than adaptation rates..  I said that in the previous - so your response is incorrect.  If one registered what that means, that statement of yours does not logically follow.  So... comes off a bit like conceptual avoidance. 

You are right that humans are adaptive ... but there is a tolerance range there, too.  What we are warning as climate and atmospheric scientists, is a reality outside that range. One cannot adapt at a certain point - let alone large groups, to whole populations having to cooperate during dwindling resources.  Again, the Earth's biological system, to which we owe our entire existence, is an integrated whole. If enough systems break down, we come under direct existential threats.

#4 Depends what is meant by 'all our resources' - ...  It's a race really ...

 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

31 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

You just repeated your same mantra back to us.  I'll try to address some stand outs then I'll move along from this conversation. 

#1  In short, it is preventable; the solution is just not desirable...  and that's what's really at stake.  Those types of questions... 'why should we, if they won't' or another one of my favorites, 'we'll be dead before it matters' ( fecklessly immoral) ...  these are all really stall tactics. They defer acceptance, or allow continued profligate practices by sending the issues spinning in discussion endlessly...  Bargaining is sometimes referred.  Unfortunately, the reality is probably not tenable by the minds of most - we are already doomed.  That's probably it.  We cannot change the momentum of 8 billion per capital species mass, as quickly as it necessarily must change.  

#2 That does not alter the truth of the problem - it only makes the point. Anthropomorphic activity is forcing environmental break downs - and it's not just CC by the way..  There are major toxicity problems ... land and sea.  Where does one begin. Human male sperm counts are down all over the world - which may not be a bad thing, ironically.  But microplastics... Narrow temperature tolerant phytoplankton die offs in the ocean.  It comes across as though the scope of knowledge/awareness isn't there frankly.  This has a ginormous spectrum of components.

#3  The Earth is presently in a mass extinction event ... That is biological fact, not mere conjecture. And the reason, based upon all metrics of science in the cause-and-effect relationship, is that climate is changing faster than adaptation rates..  I said that in the previous - so your response is incorrect.  If one registered what that means, that statement of yours does not logically follow.  So... comes off a bit like conceptual avoidance. 

You are right that humans are adaptive ... but there is a tolerance range there, too.  What we are warning as climate and atmospheric scientists, is a reality outside that range. One cannot adapt at a certain point - let alone large groups, to whole populations having to cooperate during dwindling resources.  Again, the Earth's biological system, to which we owe our entire existence, is an integrated whole. If enough systems break down, we come under direct existential threats.

#4 Depends what is meant by 'all our resources' - ...  It's a race really ...

 

Its not a mantra, it's what I believe a more realistic and efficient approach to a huge problem.

You're not addressing the insurmountable challenges I listed. You're simply stating problems with no real solutions.

 

[Typhoon Tip]

3 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

Its not a mantra, it's what I believe a more realistic and efficient approach to a huge problem.

You're not addressing the insurmountable challenges I listed. You're simply stating problems with no real solutions.

 

It is not realistic, nor efficient when when does not clearly get, believe or appreciate the scale and degree of the crisis.

What does me coming up with solutions have to with identifying the problem.   For the sake of discussion, the solution is

                                stop engaging in that which with kill us -

There is no remediation or moving to new geographies to avoid problem areas ...that which you cited evinces someone that has an overly simplified, therefore inadequate understanding of the larger manifold of moving parts in the climate holocaust.  You don't possess that acumen. 

You don't.

[Buckeyes_Suck]

9 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It is not realistic, nor efficient when when does not clearly get, believe or appreciate the scale and degree of the crisis.

What does me coming up with solutions have to with identifying the problem.   For the sake of discussion, the solution is

                                stop engaging in that which with kill us -

There is no remediation or moving to new geographies to avoid problem areas ...that which you cited evinces someone that has an overly simplified, therefore inadequate understanding of the larger manifold of moving parts in the climate holocaust.  You don't possess that acumen. 

You don't.

That’s not fair, considering you know so little about me. 
I own a Tesla and motorcycle and live on enough land to support myself and more should I need to. 
I have geothermal and solar. 
I’m pretty’s sure I’m doing my part. 
That doesn’t preclude me from having a realistic view of solutions to the problem and the reason I challenged you to provide is that I’m guessing your solutions are unrealistic. IE everyone come together and immediately recognize this existential crisis and put all their effort into stopping it. 

[chubbs]

18 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

This is troubling ..

But it is also indirectly - I believe - related to the same aspects that have decoupled the ENSO states from the circulation modes during recent winters. 

The energy observation is a different metric.. But that increasing is consistent with decoupling in the 'intuitive' sense - just probably needs the geophysical proof/mathematics

But the decoupling thing has been intriguing in its own rights.  This season spent some 5 .. 6 weeks with only weakly identifiable La Nina circulation foot-print.   This type of decoupling has taken place during both warm(cool) ENSO events, with increasing frequency, spanning the last 15 or so years. 

Prior to the past few months, haven't noticed any de-coupling of global temperature from enso.

[LibertyBell]

On 3/25/2022 at 6:42 PM, Buckeyes_Suck said:

That’s not fair, considering you know so little about me. 
I own a Tesla and motorcycle and live on enough land to support myself and more should I need to. 
I have geothermal and solar. 
I’m pretty’s sure I’m doing my part. 
That doesn’t preclude me from having a realistic view of solutions to the problem and the reason I challenged you to provide is that I’m guessing your solutions are unrealistic. IE everyone come together and immediately recognize this existential crisis and put all their effort into stopping it. 

there is a real necessity to get nations like China and India onboard, China going back to coal is a real detriment not only because of the vast number of people that live there, but also because it also affects that entire region.  They have a goal of net zero by 2060 I believe, but in the mean time they have been opening up more coal plants.  Nuclear would be a really good option here, but in the current political climate, people seem to be even more wary of nuclear.

 

[etudiant]

On 3/27/2022 at 2:38 AM, LibertyBell said:

there is a real necessity to get nations like China and India onboard, China going back to coal is a real detriment not only because of the vast number of people that live there, but also because it also affects that entire region.  They have a goal of net zero by 2060 I believe, but in the mean time they have been opening up more coal plants.  Nuclear would be a really good option here, but in the current political climate, people seem to be even more wary of nuclear.

 

Problem with nuclear is that only the Chinese seem to be able to build these plants reliably on schedule, no one has done so in Europe or the US.

That makes nuclear impossible to plan around.

[chubbs]

On 3/27/2022 at 2:38 AM, LibertyBell said:

there is a real necessity to get nations like China and India onboard, China going back to coal is a real detriment not only because of the vast number of people that live there, but also because it also affects that entire region.  They have a goal of net zero by 2060 I believe, but in the mean time they have been opening up more coal plants.  Nuclear would be a really good option here, but in the current political climate, people seem to be even more wary of nuclear.

 

India's power generation mix. They are "onboard" with renewables, but growing too fast to reduce fossil fuel use. Note that use factor for fossil is much higher than renewables.

[LibertyBell]

12 hours ago, chubbs said:

India's power generation mix. They are "onboard" with renewables, but growing too fast to reduce fossil fuel use. Note that use factor for fossil is much higher than renewables.

why "growing" is not a good thing, the entire planet needs to be capped at two children per family

[Vice-Regent]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

why "growing" is not a good thing, the entire planet needs to be capped at two children per family

It is the resource use per capita (per individual) that is most relevant. This is the first post where I really started to question your integrity but you wouldn't be the only one.

It's just thermodynamics man. All readily available fossil fuels will be burned for consumption until nothing remains or we become incapacitated. We have all been blindsided by Pandora's box also known as technological industrial civilization.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

It is the resource use per capita (per individual) that is most relevant. This is the first post where I really started to question your integrity but you wouldn't be the only one.

It's just thermodynamics man. All readily available fossil fuels will be burned for consumption until nothing remains or we become incapacitated. We have all been blindsided by Pandora's box also known as technological industrial civilization.

I've been to India a few times and seen the mess they've made there.  The air is so polluted you can't even breathe it without suffering from headaches and burning eyes.  That's the case in large parts of eastern Asia.  Too many cars, too many people, all crowded into a small area in extremely densely populated cities.  Resources are limited so you can't keep expanding exponentially, at some point you hit the ceiling of resources.  It's the same reason we control animal populations.  It has to start stabilizing at some point where births=deaths.  Technological industrial civilizations are a huge part of the problem, since before that happened, we didn't have most of these issues.  The so-called "green" revolution that started incorporating more genetically modified crops, overuse of chemical pesticides and fertilizers has also destroyed the fertility of the soil and depleted its nutrients as the third world is now finding out in Asia and Africa and reverting back to using much more sustainable organic farming techniques.

[Vice-Regent]

2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

I've been to India a few times and seen the mess they've made there.  The air is so polluted you can't even breathe it without suffering from headaches and burning eyes.  That's the case in large parts of eastern Asia.  Too many cars, too many people, all crowded into a small area in extremely densely populated cities.  Resources are limited so you can't keep expanding exponentially, at some point you hit the ceiling of resources.  It's the same reason we control animal populations.  It has to start stabilizing at some point where births=deaths.  Technological industrial civilizations are a huge part of the problem, since before that happened, we didn't have most of these issues.  The so-called "green" revolution that started incorporating more genetically modified crops, overuse of chemical pesticides and fertilizers has also destroyed the fertility of the soil and depleted its nutrients as the third world is now finding out in Asia and Africa and reverting back to using much more sustainable organic farming techniques.

Populations will certainly be culled by the limits to growth processes so I certainly don't believe there is any need to bloody our hands directly. We have already done this perhaps collectively to ourselves.

Live and learn I suppose or maybe we are just doomed to live in the moment in perpetuity. For better or worse.

[skierinvermont]

On 3/25/2022 at 7:05 AM, Buckeyes_Suck said:

On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

 

I agree we build in the wrong places. That is definitely part of the solution and we need to stop subsidizing growth in the wrong places and even consider penalizing it. For example high elevation mountain towns use a ton of transport and hear energy which is currently subsidized but really should be penalized via a carbon tax.

But I think you do miss the severity of the threat. It can't be solved only by moving around. Mass extinction and environmental chaos and rising oceans can't be fixed just by moving. The economic cost of climate change is bad already and will be catastrophic. It is cheaper, more efficient, less disruptive, and better for the planet to prevent it. The solutions exist and are already cost competitive or cheaper than Fossil fuels. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Wind and solar are already the primary source of new power generation in this country. When a power company decides what to build they are typically choosing wind and solar already. It would not cost that much to significantly accelerate what the free market is already doing.

[LibertyBell]

4 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

I agree we build in the wrong places. That is definitely part of the solution and we need to stop subsidizing growth in the wrong places and even consider penalizing it. For example high elevation mountain towns use a ton of transport and hear energy which is currently subsidized but really should be penalized via a carbon tax.

But I think you do miss the severity of the threat. It can't be solved only by moving around. Mass extinction and environmental chaos and rising oceans can't be fixed just by moving. The economic cost of climate change is bad already and will be catastrophic. It is cheaper, more efficient, less disruptive, and better for the planet to prevent it. The solutions exist and are already cost competitive or cheaper than Fossil fuels. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Wind and solar are already the primary source of new power generation in this country. When a power company decides what to build they are typically choosing wind and solar already. It would not cost that much to significantly accelerate what the free market is already doing.

Ending the subsidization would be a great step towards accelerating this change.

I think what many are worried about is how quickly they can be adapted in underprivileged parts of the country as well as underprivileged parts of the world, even knowing the enormous negative health impacts of fossil fuels.  That's where the subsidies should go, to quickly accelerating renewable energy adaptation in underprivileged parts of the country and the world.

 

[Buckeyes_Suck]

6 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

It is cheaper, more efficient, less disruptive, and better for the planet to prevent it. The solutions exist and are already cost competitive or cheaper than Fossil fuels. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Wind and solar are already the primary source of new power generation in this country. When a power company decides what to build they are typically choosing wind and solar already. It would not cost that much to significantly accelerate what the free market is already doing.

This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. 

I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming?

In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

[Buckeyes_Suck]

There's a couple great podcasts out there on this technology, could also be key in reducing climate change. Once the design is commercialized it could prove a clean source of electrify, slag that could be used for roads/concrete additives, and syngas that could be used in hydrogen fuel cells. We would eventually end up "mining" land fills to feed them.

https://seapowermagazine.org/vaporizing-trash-with-a-compact-waste-to-energy-system-that-runs-at-10000-degrees-c/

[bdgwx]

On 3/25/2022 at 12:48 AM, csnavywx said:

 

Yikes at the new CERES data. +1.5W/m2 imbalance last year. +1.2 W/m2 trend gives about +0.9C of equilibrium warming, if my back of the envelope calculation is correct. We've already probably blown +2C and at this rate of emissions, I wouldn't be shocked to see a sizeable uptick in the rate of warming this decade.

There is no way 1.5 C is realistic anymore. Even at a modest sensitivity of 0.5 C per W/m2 that is 1.2 W/m2 * 0.5 C/W.m2 = 0.6 C of warming already queued up and in the pipeline to be added to the ~1.1 C of warming that has already occurred. And the evidence suggests the climate sensitivity in C per W/m2 may start low and increase as more tipping points are activated. A final 1 C per W/m2 or higher is very much in the realm of possibility still.

 

[skierinvermont]

2 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:

This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. 

I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming?

In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

Sure if you tried to get the whole world to 90% renewable power in 20 years you would incur some extreme costs. But the vast majority of power consumption in the world is through power grids that can be hooked up to solar and wind with backup natural gas power. Natural gas plants are cheap to build but expensive to operate. They only run when the suns not shining and  winds not blowing. More developed countries can have more complex grids to distribute renewable power better. You don't need every country to be 100% renewables. You don't even need them to be 70%. You do need the U.S. Europe and China and some other developed nations to be 70%+ in the next 20 years. If the rest of the world is at 40 or 50% that's fine for 15-20 years from now. 

Getting to these levels would be quite cheap and the free market might even get us there alone, although at this rate it would take the free market more like 30 years to reach those kinds of targets. Once the developed world is at 60-70% renewable with the rest of the world averaging 40-50% renewable, maybe you start to run into some obstacles. But that's a long ways away. Right now the free market is building out renewables rapidly and it would take very little to significantly accelerate the process.

There are comprehensive cost analysis that go into the kind of detail we are talking about. We don't need to speculate. Getting the world to mostly renewable energy is absolutely possible with minimal costs. This isn't 1980.

Personally I'd argue the effects of climate change warrant a more accelerated timeline like 90% renewable in developed countries within 20 years and 70% elsewhere. And despite the long run cost savings and benefit to the planet I see very few countries stepping up and incurring those kinds of costs in the short run (unfortunately in my opinion). But the idea that we can't get to 60-70% in developed countries within 20 years and 40-50% elsewhere is kind of absurd. The free market alone will take us to those levels albeit a bit slower like 30 or 40 years.

[Wannabehippie]

California in the grips of a major drought. Going to be in a lot of trouble this summer.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/us/california-snowpack-drought-climate/index.html

[LibertyBell]

On 4/1/2022 at 5:51 PM, Wannabehippie said:

California in the grips of a major drought. Going to be in a lot of trouble this summer.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/01/us/california-snowpack-drought-climate/index.html

There's been people asking me why they don't just take water from the Pacific, distill it, and use that lol.

[LibertyBell]

On 3/31/2022 at 4:31 PM, Buckeyes_Suck said:

This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. 

I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming?

In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

The bad part is, although the developed world has been the major reason for the climate crisis, it's the developing world that's going to pay the most for it.  We'll be okay-- we can absorb the costs, but what they will pay will set them back by decades.  In the long run it will be better for them of course, but in the short term they will face a lot of issues.