Climate Change

[Pegasi]

I listened to a podcast that I wish I could share with everyone but I don't remember it enough to get a link. Essentially the point was that the global carbon system is so complicated almost any point of view can be substantiated.

However the main point of the podcast was to acknowledge that the earth has a natural carbon cycle with or without humans. His job is to determine if and how much humans may be influencing this cycle. And if we are influencing past a certain "point" what are the ramifications and how/should we change it.

 

[Eagle7]

Yes, this is exactly the type of approach that needs to be taken before we start trying to do things on a global scale.

 

[Nova]

I think you are misunderstanding what the figures I posted demonstrate.

Localised pollution may be worse in China, India and other developing nations but this, while bad for all species in the locality, it is not a good measure of whether that country is large contributor to Climate change.
It is emissions per captia that highlights the contribution any particular nation is having on the rapid increase in green house gases that have been measured over the last century. The US and Canada produce double the emissions of China and 15 times that of India.

I understand the point, I am merely raising the issue that looking at per capita figures is incongruent with environmental quality realities in these countries. Another point is that GHG emissions in North America and EU has been decreasing, while that for China and India has been sky rocketing. China is already the largest emitter of GHG in the world. This trend will certainly continue in the next two to three decades as China and India continue their economic development.

If you are looking for a country or countries to frown upon for GHG emissions, the US and Canada are the wrong targets as we are already fairly efficient with our energy use and is getting more so year by year.

 

[NicolasB]

It's all in record. CO2 levels are in the ice cores they sample, thousands of years of data. We have graphed the cycles, and it goes nearly vertical on the chart over the past century .

Yes, there always nstusl cycles, the earth emits methane and CO2 naturally, and things change gradually (over 10's of thousands of years). This gives nature time to adapt and evolve. For us, right now, it is happening so rapidly, we cannot adapt so quickly. Building dams to withhold floods, trying to strengthen the power grid with solar, wind & hydro to deal with higher usage if A/C in himes because the temps are so high that heat-related deaths are among the biggest killers of humans. It's a cycle that is now in an exponential climb. More ice melts, less ice caps available to reflect sun (they are white) and more dark blue ocean to absorb heat. Currents in the ocean ste being slowed by the cold, melting ice cap water, which is detrimental (The Day After Tomorrow movie wasn't that far off!).

Just accept we have made things go at a much, much faster rate than nature. It is very plain to ibserve, and the science proves it. As they say, science doesn't care about your beliefs. The facts are easy to connect like dots, and show that we are doing this.

Electric cars won't solve it, it's so much bigger. Stop cutting forests that absorb CO2, start installing solar & wind power generation out west in the endless dust bowl where sun & wind are plentiful. Come together as a human race and make s game plan and go at it like a team. The Paris Accord was a start, and even Kim Jong Un joined! But we pulled out under 45, it's like the anti-everything party. Do the opposite just to try to stand out. Join the team, get in board. What is wrong with over-compensating toward saving the earth if we can do it in safe, effective ways that let us continue our mostly normal living situations?

 

[NicolasB]

LOL. Just to prove you're wrong, no. They are not white. Their skin is actually black, and their hair is clear and tubular. They appear white because of the way light reflects through their hair. Their hair is tubular because the air inside provides insulation which enables them to survive in the harsh cold of their environment.

Well it least you kept it to 1 paragraph?

 

[Eagle7]

Well it least you kept it ton1 paragraph?

Yes, and I was right too!

 

[Eagle7]

It's all in record. CO2 levels are in the ice cores they sample, thousands of years of data. We have graphed the cycles, and it goes nearly vertical on the chart over the past century .

Yes, there always nstusl cycles, the earth emits methane and CO2 naturally, and things change gradually (over 10's of thousands of years). This gives nature time to adapt and evolve. For us, right now, it is happening so rapidly, we cannot adapt so quickly. Building dams to withhold floods, trying to strengthen the power grid with solar, wind & hydro to deal with higher usage if A/C in himes because the temps are so high that heat-related deaths are among the biggest killers of humans. It's a cycle that is now in an exponential climb. More ice melts, less ice caps available to reflect sun (they are white) and more dark blue ocean to absorb heat. Currents in the ocean ste being slowed by the cold, melting ice cap water, which is detrimental (The Day After Tomorrow movie wasn't that far off!).

Just accept we have made things go at a much, much faster rate than nature. It is very plain to ibserve, and the science proves it. As they say, science doesn't care about your beliefs. The facts are easy to connect like dots, and show that we are doing this.

Electric cars won't solve it, it's so much bigger. Stop cutting forests that absorb CO2, start installing solar & wind power generation out west in the endless dust bowl where sun & wind are plentiful. Come together as a human race and make s game plan and go at it like a team. The Paris Accord was a start, and even Kim Jong Un joined! But we pulled out under 45, it's like the anti-everything party. Do the opposite just to try to stand out. Join the team, get in board. What is wrong with over-compensating toward saving the earth if we can do it in safe, effective ways that let us continue our mostly normal living situations?

I don't have to "just accept" anything. I've learned over the years to look, examine and think first, because we get lied to and manipulated all the time. Sometimes intentionally, and sometimes it's just wrong or at best, incomplete.

Having lived through over half of the 'last 100 years' being referred to in this thread, I can tell you what it's like to actually live in a world with less than half the population we have now. I can also tell you what it's like to not have the power of technology, or the improvements in medical science of today.

The biggest change I see of the last century, was the invention of penicillin, and vaccines (genuine vaccines, not bio-weapon lab experiments) that cured polio, tuberculosis, small pox, measles, and to a large extent lessened the impact of influenza. Those diseases were responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people in genuine, actual pandemics, not plandemics. If you ever take the time to go through some of the old historic graveyards, you'll notice the shocking number of gravestones of children; so very many died before reaching adulthood. One of the reasons why families had so many children back then, was because there was a very good chance half of them would die before reaching the age of 20. Many women died in childbirth. Up until the 1950's, life was pretty tough.

It was that stiff mortality rate, that had kept the world population from growing overly large. From the beginning of the human race, up until 1962, the world population had reached only 3 billion. It was in the 1950's that we began to develop effective medical technology, and after WW2, the industrialization of America began to dramatically change everyday life, including food production and how to preserve food. Instead of just having something to eat period, the idea of nutrition and the quality of what you ate became a thing. Health became a practical concern, because we could actually do something about it. The effects of smoking which EVERYBODY did in those days, became apparent, and it didn't take long before people stopped smoking, which was responsible for a LOT of deaths due to cancer.

The cumulative effect of all this is instead of people being old at age 30, and really old once you reached 45, probably dead by 55, now people were living much longer, in better health than ever before. That's directly the result of food production and quality, and medical technology. It was extremely unusual for someone to reach 90 in those days, and if you made it to 100, that would actually make the news. Now it's no big deal. You aren't middle aged until you reach your mid 40's, and you aren't a senior until you reach your 60's, and now being in your 70's and 80's is like people used to be in their 40's and 50's.

The consequence? The world population went from 3 billion in 1962, to 7 billion in 2012. We more than doubled the population growth of all time in only 50 years. Therein lies the base cause of the issues we're facing today. The very things that have saved our lives, and improved the health and quality, have created the issues we're facing now. It doesn't appear there was any serious thought put into the consequences, and why would there be? Saving lives and quality of life are good! Why would that be a concern? This illustrates the necessity of thinking things through to see what the side-effects of the things we do might be, and figuring out how to deal with them before they could possibly create a separate crisis on their own.

 

[mjw930]

Alright, if you believe that climate change is really happening, and poses a threat to human beings (not to mention wildlife), then how would you stop it?

It’s a fools errand to think we can stop it, at best we can reduce the magnitude and mitigate its effects.

The first thing I would do would be to reprioritize investment to focus on the things that can have the most cost effective benefit. One simple example would be our research and investment in clean energy. Reduce the investments in wind and solar by 80% and reinvest a portion of that into nuclear and hydro. Set a goal for each member state to achieve 100% clean energy by say 2040 and expand the reach to include providing clean, reliable energy to the entire globe, not just the richest countries.

Still push forward with wind a solar but with a much more reasonable investment and realize these are supplemental supplies that will always require a reliable source to augment their contribution (think Texas last winter).

Realize that any public edict to achieve a transformation from ICE to EV is dependent upon 2 factors, a reliable, clean electrical grid capable of suppling the need and the realization that mass adoption will only occur when EV’s are less expensive to acquire and maintain than the current ICE benchmarks.

And most of all, get over this insane believe that we must do penance for our sins and stop all the fear mongering.

 

[eriegz]

Relevant aside: check out what Sebastian Vettel just said about climate change and also about my home province:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sebastian-vettel-oilsands-alberta-climate-change-1.6493309

Sebastian Vettel arrived at the Montreal Grand Prix wearing his thoughts about climate change on his T-shirt.

The Formula One star from Germany arrived at Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in a T-shirt with "Stop Mining Tar Sands," and "Canada's Climate Crime" under the picture of a pipeline. He's wearing a helmet with the same slogan this weekend.

"I think what happens in Alberta is a crime because you chop down a lot of trees and you basically destroy the place just to extract oil and the manner of doing it with the tarsands, oilsands mining, is horrible for nature," Vettel said, when asked about the T-shirt at a news conference Friday.

 

[Green]

Actually he didn't suggest this topic get moved to its own thread, I did earlier. Tom agreed.

It's nearly impossible to discuss anything nowadays because the standard go-to response from certain types is to begin mocking and laughing at someone who dares to question, or present ideas that differ from what the accusers have or might think. I think it's either because they don't already have anything of substance to offer, or simply aren't able to come with anything. Either way they change their status from being a possible participant, to nothing more than an annoying pest.

So I will ask politely: if you don't have anything reasonable or sensible to ask, offer, or comment on, please keep your derision to yourselves. If you don't like what's being discussed, stay out of the thread and don't read it, so those who do want to discuss it intelligently can do so without your harassment and interference.

Sorry you are not the lord of the forum you should probably take a break.

 

[Eagle7]

Sorry you are not the lord of the forum you should probably take a break.

Sorry if asking you to not be a pest struck home. If all you can do is mock and laugh, you should probably stay out of this thread so you can laugh until tears are coming out of your eyes without interfering with the discussion.

 

[Eagle7]

Relevant aside: check out what Sebastian Vettel just said about climate change and also about my home province:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/sebastian-vettel-oilsands-alberta-climate-change-1.6493309

View attachment 6594

Problem is, what he's talking about isn't climate change; it's environment. That's something we certainly can manage and control, and there can be a balance for these things. Forest management is important, but so is energy production. Going to extremes in either direction isn't the way to go about things.

 

[duff]

I understand the point, I am merely raising the issue that looking at per capita figures is incongruent with environmental quality realities in these countries. Another point is that GHG emissions in North America and EU has been decreasing, while that for China and India has been sky rocketing. China is already the largest emitter of GHG in the world. This trend will certainly continue in the next two to three decades as China and India continue their economic development.

If you are looking for a country or countries to frown upon for GHG emissions, the US and Canada are the wrong targets as we are already fairly efficient with our energy use and is getting more so year by year.

This thread is not about environmental quality. It is about Climate Change and those figures I posted are the ones that matter in that respect.
The US and Canada are not efficient in energy usage. On per capita basis they are significantly worse than China and India. China might may emit twice as much GHG as the US but it has 4 times the population. Hence an American resident contributes twice as much GHG per year as a Chinese resident.
The emissions in the US are coming down and others are rising agreed, but right now the US and Canada, are still far larger per capita emitters than the countries you and others are pillorying. To suggest otherwise contradicts published emissions levels.

 

[eriegz]

Problem is, what he's talking about isn't climate change; it's environment.

It's both.

If you click through to the article he also talks about climate change itself, and how he's even starting to question his career of driving and flying around the world for a living, which is more honesty and introspection than I expect from "leaders" / celebrities these days

Forest management is important, but so is energy production.

I would re-word this slightly: "Energy production is important for humans". When you frame it that way, it really helps to cut through to the crux of the matter, which is:

Humans have been so focused on what's good for humans, that we've totally ignored what's good for the planet. We've made unimaginable amounts of short-term gains, in exchange for an equal amount of long-term pains.

 

[NicolasB]

Still push forward with wind a solar but with a much more reasonable investment and realize these are supplemental supplies that will always require a reliable source to augment their contribution (think Texas last winter).

Remember Texas' problem last winter was the traditional power plants had not used anti-freeze in their cooling systems (as recommended) and a number of them froze and broke down. The solar/wind kept working and was helpful in maintaining the grid as they could until the traditional systems were repaired.

 

[Green]

Sorry if asking you to not be a pest struck home. If all you can do is mock and laugh, you should probably stay out of this thread so you can laugh until tears are coming out of your eyes without interfering with the discussion.

Why so angry? Do you need a hug?

 

[Eagle7]

Why so angry? Do you need a hug?

Why so petty, do you need a safe space?

 

[Green]

Why so petty, do you need a safe space?

Got me old timer!

 

[mjw930]

Remember Texas' problem last winter was the traditional power plants had not used anti-freeze in their cooling systems (as recommended) and a number of them froze and broke down. The solar/wind kept working and was helpful in maintaining the grid as they could until the traditional systems were repaired.

Yes, that was a bad reference. In further reading it was actually the gas wells that froze which caused the plants to reduce capacity which prevented the wells from operating (the wells require electricity to operate) so it was a cascading event. But regardless, I fell for the narrative and deserve the rebuke.

 

[Nova]

The US and Canada are not efficient in energy usage. On per capita basis they are significantly worse than China and India. China might may emit twice as much GHG as the US but it has 4 times the population. Hence an American resident contributes twice as much GHG per year as a Chinese resident.
The emissions in the US are coming down and others are rising agreed, but right now the US and Canada, are still far larger per capita emitters than the countries you and others are pillorying. To suggest otherwise contradicts published emissions levels.

I don't buy the logic that lower per capita GHG means higher efficiency. Efficiency is a measure of input versus output, and the output here is economic value. A better measure would be GHG per unit of GDP. It's simply asinine to suggest that the average American should look towards the average Chines as a model of environmental efficiency since the standard of living is so vastly different.