You two are just fun to pick on. — frank

Right, that’s what’s happening. :lol:

are, have done a bad job of making their case. Why else is there so much controversy? Compare climate science to physics and consider how the latter has a better reputation than the former. — TheMadFool

I mentioned why there’s controversy. The controversy has been manufactured. Just as the “controversy” about smoking and cancer was manufactured by tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies have deliberately created controversy here— and it’s all documented.

The controversies in physics don't threaten the pocket books of the billionaires. — James Riley

The evidence in physics doesn’t, yes. The evidence of climate change does, just like the evidence for evolution threatens Biblical literalists.

I mentioned why there’s controversy. The controversy has been manufactured. Just as the “controversy” about smoking and cancer was manufactured by tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies have deliberately created controversy here— and it’s all documented. — Xtrix

Please don't mention cancer as I (TheMadFool) am a chain smoker. Please don't mention climate change because I (Mother Earth) too am a chain smoker.

Fossil Fuels are basically dead PLANTS & ANIMALS. Hmmm... :chin: Dead plants and animals killing living plants and animals. It's a zombie apocalypse!

China announces no more foreign coal plant building

EPA will finalize rules to faze out HFCs.

Couple pieces of somewhat good news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/world/asia/china-coal.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/573522-epa-finalizes-rule-cutting-use-of-potent-greenhouse-gas-used-in%3famp

China announces no more foreign coal plant building — Xtrix

That doesn't mean the plants will stop burning coal. And of course China is not suspending its own coal plant building program. it is, as you noted, somewhat good news. It might be vanishingly slight good news. Time will tell.

That doesn't mean the plants will stop burning coal. And of course China is not suspending its own coal plant building program. — Bitter Crank

All true. Still, given how much China is investing in foreign infrastructure, that’s a significant reduction.

It's a zombie apocalypse! — TheMadFool

Why are you never funny?

Why are you never funny? — Xtrix

One of my many flaws, apologies!

One of my many flaws, apologies! — TheMadFool

No problem. Just one man’s opinion anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/climate/climate-threats-federal-government.html

From The NY Times. It’s a list from a number of government departments about ways climate change will threaten the country — from migrations to food shortage to stronger storms. Worth a look.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/climate/biden-clean-energy-manchin.html

The death knell for the species.

It’s surreal that it’s happening right in front of us, and no one notices.

Oh they will.






When there's no food to eat or when they have to move to another country - if they even can.

Just thought I'd drop this in the mix:

Until now, human civilization has operated within a narrow, stable band of temperature. Through the burning of fossil fuels, we have now unmoored ourselves from our past, as if we have transplanted ourselves onto another planet. The last time it was hotter than now was at least 125,000 years ago, while the atmosphere has more heat-trapping carbon dioxide in it than any time in the past two million years, perhaps more.

Since 1970, the Earth’s temperature has raced upwards faster than in any comparable period. The oceans have heated up at a rate not seen in at least 11,000 years. “We are conducting an unprecedented experiment with our planet,” said Hayhoe. “The temperature has only moved a few tenths of a degree for us until now, just small wiggles in the road. But now we are hitting a curve we’ve never seen before.” — Guardian - Earth is already becoming unlivable. Will governments act to stop this disaster from getting worse?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/oct/14/climate-change-happening-now-stats-graphs-maps-cop26

With photographs and predictions.
People and countries are already affected.
What can be done, if it's not too late ?
Watch programmes - telling us what to buy - electric cars, bamboo toothbrushes, wonky veggies...?

Ah, here we go:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0010k49/shop-well-for-the-planet-series-1-episode-1

Life is busy for mum Alison and dad Alex. They have a packed schedule looking after their two active sons, seven-year-old Arthur and 11-year-old Harrison. With so much going on, trying to go green has never been a priority for them, but the pandemic and lockdown have made them rethink. Now the whole family want to try to help the planet, but they don’t know where to start.

Chris and Jo set up a pop-up shop filled with the family’s main areas of eco-concern and reveal their average carbon footprint. Alison and Alex are shocked to find out how much over the national average they currently are. To turn the family's house green, the team swap their usual cleaning products for homemade versions and eliminate some of their single-use plastic. Jordan and Chris take on committed carnivore Alex and try to convince him that going meat-free a couple of days a week doesn’t have to be painful. Can they turn him around with their simple and quick veg curry?

Melanie and Alison test eco varieties of toilet rolls, but do they stand up next to the regular supermarket options? The great British public put a range of natural deodorants to the test to see if they really do keep you smelling fresh, and another group tickle their tastebuds with Fairtrade chocolate to find out whether price makes a difference when it comes to taste. As a dog owner, Jordan wants to investigate what the impact of our pets is on the planet. He travels to Scotland to meet the owner of an eco-friendly dog food business and find out what his secret ingredient is.

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Oct 19, 2021)

the remaining one percent are members of various parliaments and other representative parties.

Here's a way out of the climate change - fossil fuel predicament: Invent/develop $CO_2$ capturing chemical-based devices, attach them to the exhaust pipes and smoke stacks of vehicles and coal plants. That way we can make everyone (Big Oil and climate activists both) happy - we can keep burning oil and coal and there would be no negative effects on the environment/climate.

Human activities have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect. — www.climate.gov

Does hypercapnia (carbon dioxide poisoning) explain the chaos apparent in the world today?

Hypercapnia may happen in the context of an underlying health condition, and symptoms may relate to this condition or directly to the hypercapnia. Specific symptoms attributable to early hypercapnia are dyspnea (breathlessness), headache, confusion and lethargy. — Wikipedia

Are climate deniers and all others who are in a state of confusion (the whole world basically) suffering from $CO_2$ poisoning? :chin:

No, their indignation makes them hyperventilate.

:flower:

Boiling Frog.

The boiling frog is a fable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. — Wikipedia

Climate projections generally seem to assume the economy, and the rising energy needs that invariably come with that, will just keep on growing... into the 2100 even.

A saving grace - from the perspective of climate change anyway - maybe is that we will probably hit a wall long before that because extracting fossil fuels will become a whole lot more difficult progressively. Carbon emissions will come down, if not because we take the necessary measures, then because of the scarcity of fossil fuels... or because of climate change fueled societal breakdowns.

Either way, society will need to change fundamentally, to adjust to lower energy and resource usage. Renewable energy will never wholly compensate for the loss of the dense and abundant energy fossil fuels provided us... that was a once in an earthlife-time opportunity.

As no (more or less mainstream) political party is even attempting to sell the idea that we will have to do with less, chances are this whole power-down is going to be a messy affair.

I wish nobody harm, but I do welcome this broader societal change even if it's not going to be pretty. Dirt cheap energy did fuel some pretty obscene things, I'm definitely not going to miss those. And if it's inevitable either way, then we can better get it over with.... nothing is more deadening to the spirit than these constant attempts to stitch together and reanimate a diseased and decaying corpse.

Couple of interesting articles:

Here, from NY Times -- "There Has Been Progress, But Not Nearly Enough."

From Wall Street Journal: "What Will This Climate Plan Cost and Who Will Pay?"

Worth reading.

COP26 is upcoming, in Glasgow...deserves its own thread, in conjunction with the reconciliation bill.

@ChatteringMonkey I think the biggest problem is just a simply lack of efficiency. There is too much waste in terms of production and distribution. Sadly these issues are often exacerbated by fears of new technologies. An example of this is the fear of nuclear power (very clean!) that could've already helped to turn the tide a little if nations had started to build next generation reactors a decade ago ... the problem was the cost and public pushback.

Energy use will not decrease (unless poverty increases or population decreases) but efficiency has too either way.

The real hope lies in the scientific models being inaccurate in our favour. It certainly isn't worth gambling with the future and blindly hoping our understanding of how the climate functions is limited enough for us to have made an overestimate when we could just as easily have underestimated the problem.

There's upper physical limits to how much more energy-efficient you can get in the production and distribution of energy. Sure there is still room for improvement there, but not enough I think for renewables to replace fossil fuels entirely. Nuclear power maybe could have gotten us there, but as you said this project should've started decades ago because it takes time.

I used to be more of a techno-optimist, thinking we'll find a way etc... But what I and a lot of people with me didn't and don't really appreciate is how exceptional fossil fuels really were and how much they changed the game. It was literally reserves of stored and compacted solar energy that had been accumulating over millennia, gushing out of the ground... 1 gallon of oil is the energy-equivalent of 5 years of human labor, for a fraction of the price. We were wasteful because we could.

You often hear it's only a matter of political will to convert fully to renewables etc... but has anyone actually seen a plan something other than these high-level abstract calculations that just gloss of particularities of different sectors and industries like say metallurgy, manufacturing etc... How are we generating enough heat with renewables to make steel to name just one thing?

I dunno, I think we won't get there in terms of energy production, if not because of strictly theoretical limitations, then because of practical issues with converting to other energy-sources. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but this seems by far the most likely scenario to me, that we will have to reduce our energy-consumption, which ultimately means a lack of economic growth too because those always have gone together.

The real hope lies in the scientific models being inaccurate in our favour. It certainly isn't worth gambling with the future and blindly hoping our understanding of how the climate functions is limited enough for us to have made an overestimate when we could just as easily have underestimated the problem. — I like sushi

The models are probably pretty accurate in what they do. Problem is that what they do doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about how the real world will evolve. They are basically saying we are just climate scientists, we will bracket/make abstraction of everything other than the physics of climate change... and leave messy and complex things like societal and economic feedbacks to someone else. No way we would have stable societies and growing economies all the way up to some of these projected temperatures.

There's upper physical limits to how much more energy-efficient you can get in the production and distribution of energy. Sure there is still room for improvement there, but not enough I think for renewables to replace fossil fuels entirely. — ChatteringMonkey

I wasn't suggesting replacing all fossil fuels just being more efficient with them. There isn't any realistic scenario (with known tech) atm that would allow every country to stop using fossil fuels. Food production wastes a lot!

Nuclear power maybe could have gotten us there, but as you said this project should've started decades ago because it takes time. — ChatteringMonkey

Better late than never. If it turns out the estimates made are more in our favour such actions NOW could actually make a big difference.

I used to be more of a techno-optimist, thinking we'll find a way etc... But what I and a lot of people with me didn't and don't really appreciate is how exceptional fossil fuels really were and how much they changed the game. It was literally reserves of stored and compacted solar energy that had been accumulating over millennia, gushing out of the ground... 1 gallon of oil is the energy-equivalent of 5 years of human labor, for a fraction of the price. We were wasteful because we could. — ChatteringMonkey

Well if we don't look to this as a way to deal with it then we may as well roll over and die. No thanks!

There is a lot to be said for taking advantage of fossil fuels. Mistreat a horse and it dies. Mistreat fossil fuels and it doesn't protest.

You often hear it's only a matter of political will to convert fully to renewables etc... but has anyone actually seen a plan something other than these high-level abstract calculations that just gloss of particularities of different sectors and industries like say metallurgy, manufacturing etc... How are we generating enough heat with renewables to make steel to name just one thing? — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think any Western government has the strength to do anything much. China can act instantly due to the political setup whereas Russia appears to be disrupting things as switching to MORE gas is better than using coal - not ideal but 'better'.

I dunno, I think we won't get there in terms of energy production, if not because of strictly theoretical limitations, then because of practical issues with converting to other energy-sources. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but this seems by far the most likely scenario to me, that we will have to reduce our energy-consumption, which ultimately means a lack of economic growth too because those always have gone together. — ChatteringMonkey

My point was more or less that if we only used what we really needed (in terms of strict regulations on industry) then we'd use less and growing countries would then adopt these techniques as they'd effectively save them resources. Such things will buy more time if nothing else. In terms of agriculture it would help a huge amount.

More efficiency would probably not translate into a lack of economic growth. I don't see how it would tbh?

The models are probably pretty accurate in what they do. Problem is that what they do doesn't necessarily tell us a lot about how the real world will evolve. They are basically saying we are just climate scientist, we will bracket/make abstraction of everything other than the physics of climate change... and leave messy and complex things like societal and economic feedbacks to someone else. No way we would have stable societies and growing economies all the way up to some of these projected temperatures. — ChatteringMonkey

No doubt the models are improving. There are blind spots though in our knowledge and model need constant tweaking. The human factor cannot be factored in. There are many other factors that are uncertain too such as the effect of the Gulf Stream.

I believe there is no reason we cannot. It depends on whether you believe we have decent societies today or not. I don't think so in general but things have turned around a lot over the last century or so. We're still very much in a period of social adjustment.

Note: EU and UK is behind on GM foods still. They are only just starting to ease up on the paranoia. Again, better late than never :)

I also despair when people belittle what Elon Musk has done and is doing. Pushing scientific knowledge and putting ideas to the test will lead to advances that could help everyone. In terms of research into how to colonize Mars it is obvious that anything we learn do that will help us to manage the situation on Earth (he can do it whereas governments cannot justify such things due to lack of public backing).

My point was more or less that if we only used what we really needed (in terms of strict regulations on industry) then we'd use less and growing countries would then adopt these techniques as they'd effectively save them resources. Such things will buy more time if nothing else. In terms of agriculture it would help a huge amount.

More efficiency would probably not translate into a lack of economic growth. I don't see how it would tbh? — I like sushi

Ok I didn't really get that this was your point. I completely agree with you then, ideally finite fossil fuels that are still left, should be rationed wisely to transition to a post-fossil fuel economy.

More efficient use of fossil fuels itself obviously wouldn't translate into a lack of economic growth, that's right, but more generally the inevitable and gradual depletion of fossil fuels eventually would, it seems to me. A lot of the spectacular economic growth of past centuries was possible only because of abundant and cheap energy.

I'll comment on you latter point in a next post...

Note: EU and UK is behind on GM foods still. They are only just starting to ease up on the paranoia. Again, better late than never :) — I like sushi

I also despair when people belittle what Elon Musk has done and is doing. Pushing scientific knowledge and putting ideas to the test will lead to advances that could help everyone. In terms of research into how to colonize Mars it is obvious that anything we learn do that will help us to manage the situation on Earth (he can do it whereas governments cannot justify such things due to lack of public backing). — I like sushi

How much of it is just dick-measuring and how much of it has any real chance of helping us along is the question here I guess. Sure we probably could do it eventually, colonize Mars, but at what cost right? What's the rationale behind blowing a ton of resources when we could use those same resources with more tangible effects here on earth? Probably prestige is an important factor without which the project wouldn't be done, If I had to guess... then again it's impossible to actually calculate the intangible long-term effects to society at large from projects like these.

Perhaps more fundamentally than some kind of cost-benefit analysis, your deeper ideological convictions will probably determine where you fall on this kind of issue.

Like I said, I used to be more techno-optimist. A historical perspective on energy has really changed this for me because a lot of these ideas of perpetual economic growth, innovation and progress rely heavily on the availability of cheap energy. If you think this is just a short-lived fase in history and not the norm, then how much do these ideas that seem to rely on it still hold up on their own really?

And then there's the more traditional critique of this being the mind-set that got us into trouble in the first place, i.e. humanity standing above and beyond nature and the world, constantly trying to control it. And I think there's something to that critique, in the sense that we do seem to need constant patches upon patches to solve new problems arising from previous solution to older problems etc ad infinitum.

I completely agree with you then, ideally finite fossil fuels that are still left, should be rationed wisely to transition to a post-fossil fuel economy. — ChatteringMonkey

But we cannot expect countries like India to stop using coal (nor will they). This is the big problem.

Sure we probably could do it eventually, colonize Mars, but at what cost right? What's the rationale behind blowing a ton of resources when we could use those same resources with more tangible effects here on earth? — ChatteringMonkey

Because the resources are tiny in the bigger picture and the technological advancements could be phenomenal - leading to more applicable ways to combat the problem. Dick measuring or not it doesn't matter if it pushes our limitations in regards to how to survive in hostile environments and figure out a way solutions to dealing with such problems on the way.

then again it's impossible to actually calculate the intangible long-term effects to society at large for projects like these. — ChatteringMonkey

Of course. But we know such projects can and have bore fruits. Going to the Moon and creating weaponry for WW2.

And then there's the more traditional critique of this being the mind-set that got us into trouble in the first place, i.e. humanity standing above and beyond nature and the world, constantly trying to control it. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't see much distinction between humanity and nature. We've impacted the globe and will continue to do so. That is not 'unnatural' even though some wish to frame this as 'against nature'. We are able to make mistakes and see possible future mistakes (and correct them) whereas other species cannot do this.

We are not going to go extinct nor is it likely human knowledge will just be erased overnight.

No one saw a solution to many problems humanity has faced along the way. That is why they are called problems. Enough people seem to care to make something happen and more are starting to be practical rather than reactionary.

I completely agree with you then, ideally finite fossil fuels that are still left, should be rationed wisely to transition to a post-fossil fuel economy.
— ChatteringMonkey

But we cannot expect countries like India to stop using coal (nor will they). This is the big problem. — I like sushi

Yes if you would look at it historically and from a fairness point of view we would need to almost stop all use of fossil fuels right now to give them some room to grow... this is not going to happen, and so it will be messy.

Of course. But we know such projects can and have bore fruits. Going to the Moon and creating weaponry for WW2. — I like sushi

In a fossil fueled growth economy they did, there's no guarantee this will continue to be the case.

I don't see much distinction between humanity and nature. We've impacted the globe and will continue to do so. That is not 'unnatural' even though some wish to frame this as 'against nature'. We are able to make mistakes and see possible future mistakes (and correct them) whereas other species cannot do this. — I like sushi

We've impacted the globe disproportionately is the problem. This is hard the look past, humans and domesticated livestock account for 96% of all mammalian biomass nowadays. It creates problems we have to solve ourselves now, problems that 'nature' used to solve by itself.

Prime example is mono-culture agriculture. To get higher yields of a certain crop, mono-culture seemed like a great idea because you can mechanize and automate the whole thing if it is mono and repeatable. But in the process you removed plants :

- that attract predator-species that prey on pests, and you now have to apply pesticides yourself
- that fix and recycle nutrients into the soil, and you now have apply fertilizer yourself
- that retain water, and you now have to irrigate yourself
- that make the whole system resilient, and you lose and have to rebuilt everything if natural disaster strikes

Year after year the land gets worse because ecosystems and soil-life is effectively destroyed because automation (efficiency) demands it, and you progressively need more invested into them to make them suitable for agriculture. All of this is maybe not that big of a problem if you have cheap energy fueled machinery you can keep throwing at the problems as they keep coming.... but as the problems get worse and energy gets more expensive it's doubtful this would be sustainable.

At some point you have to wonder, is this whole way we do things still worth it?