Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 05, 2019, 01:14:16 am


Title: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 05, 2019, 01:14:16 am
We are living on borrowed time due to climate change, and it is inevitable that a catastrophic event will befall the Earth soon enoug.  The only question is when?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/permafrost-melting-1.5119767

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-climate-change-food-north-1.5079308
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 05, 2019, 05:39:50 am
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iaNXuIx53DJ4/v0/620x-1.png)

"The research bolsters previous warnings from defense and intelligence agencies that climate change could trigger more conflicts severe enough to uproot populations.

While a changing climate won’t always lead to armed conflict, the regional conditions in the Middle East in 2010 were just right to feed a spiral of violence. Migration resulting from those rifts stretched from Syria to Sudan, according to Raya Muttarak, one of the study’s co-authors from the U.K.’s University of East Anglia.

“It takes a perfect storm,” Muttarak said, pointing out that political conditions play an outsize role. “If it’s too authoritarian or too democratic the results are different.”

The study’s other authors, who work at institutions in Austria and China, provided tangible advice to world leaders looking to stem the flow of refugees fleeing conflict.

Policies to “improve the adaptive capacity to deal with the effects of climate change in developing economies may have additional returns by reducing the likelihood of conflict and forced migration,” they wrote."


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/pentagon-fears-confirmed-climate-change-leads-to-war-refugees
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 07:02:25 am
We are living on borrowed time due to climate change, and it is inevitable that a catastrophic event will befall the Earth soon enoug.  The only question is when?
Not really. It seems like every human generation has an intense desire to believe their time on the planet is "special". "end of the world" religions/ideologies tend to fill this need which is why the "end of the world" is always just around the corner for *every* generation. But in the end things tend to work out and this period of time will become as forgettable as the 1520s.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 10:00:01 am
Climate change will result in migration. In 1600, the world population was less than 600 million, now we are over 7 billion, headed for 9 billion by 2050. Old rules won’t apply.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 10:15:49 am
Climate change will result in migration. In 1600, the world population was leas than 600 million, now we are over 7 billion, headed for 9 billion by 2050. Old rules won’t apply.
In 1600 any localized crop failure would result in mass starvation and migration. That only stopped because cheap energy provided by fossil fuels meant food could be moved to where it was needed. Take away that cheap energy and that problem will come back and it won't because of climate change per se.

More importantly, the "climate change migration" claim is often just another scare tactic used by political actors to silence opposition to their pet polices. In this case, the pet policy is the general desire by those on the left to dump the world's problems onto the tax payers in developed countries. Nothing that is said in media about "climate change migration" should be taken at face value.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Omni on May 05, 2019, 10:54:27 am
Not really. It seems like every human generation has an intense desire to believe their time on the planet is "special". "end of the world" religions/ideologies tend to fill this need which is why the "end of the world" is always just around the corner for *every* generation. But in the end things tend to work out and this period of time will become as forgettable as the 1520s.

I don't think in the 1520's we were driving around in over a billion autos every day.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: waldo on May 05, 2019, 11:36:41 am
More importantly, the "climate change migration" claim is often just another scare tactic used by political actors to silence opposition to their pet polices. In this case, the pet policy is the general desire by those on the left to dump the world's problems onto the tax payers in developed countries. Nothing that is said in media about "climate change migration" should be taken at face value.

well... in the past you have stated, effectively, developed nations should take care of themselves and have no obligations toward developing nations that haven't any causal ties to impacting climate change tied to developed country emissions. So - thanks for your consistency!

but c'mon, as the Adapt-R-Us guy, how can you turn your back on your people... those ultimate adapters forced to leave their homes/countries due to sea-level rise, extreme weather events, drought and water scarcity, etc..
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 11:44:57 am
We are seeing it in Africa now and the northern migration in the Americas is also at least partly due to climate. The sheer numbers involved will dwarf previous migrations and overwhelm some countries.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: queenmandy85 on May 05, 2019, 11:51:33 am
A good example of what happens when there is a sudden change in climate is to look at Europe in the 4th and 5th centuries. The western Roman Empire collapsed. Northern Europeans began moving south and over ran the Roman frontier. Why did they move south? Crop failure due to a drop in temperature. The Roman army was unable to move because it was dependent on wheeled transport and their incredible road system was crumbling due to frost heaves. The "barbarians" were not dependent on roads.
While the collapse of the western Empire had many causes, it was the "little ice-age that brought it down. In spite of the instability and corruption at the top, the government continued to function due to an incredible professional civil service. However, even they were incapable of dealing with the cooler climate. The actual transition from civilization to dark ages took a decade or two, the collapse was likely less than five years.
That was only a minor shift in temperature, likely caused by volcanic activity, and it was confined mainly to Europe.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 12:19:17 pm
We are seeing it in Africa now and the northern migration in the Americas is also at least partly due to climate. The sheer numbers involved will dwarf previous migrations and overwhelm some countries.
Over population and dysfunctional governments leads to migration. Climate change is not a significant factor in migration pressures from Africa or South America since these pressures would be happening even if climate change was not an issue.

Trying to blame developed countries for cultural and political problems in developing countries is simply a means to extort money.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 12:24:21 pm
Over population and dysfunctional governments leads to migration. Climate change is not a significant factor in Africa or South America. These pressures would be happening even if climate change was not an issue. As I said, climate change and migration is most a political tool used by political actors to push an agenda that has little to do with climate change.

Did I not mention population? The consequences of multiple crop failures due to climate are what drive migration. They also drive political instability. I'm surprised you would think they are unrelated issues.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 12:37:59 pm
Did I not mention population? The consequences of multiple crop failures due to climate are what drive migration. They also drive political instability. I'm surprised you would think they are unrelated issues.
My issue is the nonsensical attempts to take complex problems where climate change is a minor contributor and then claim that it is all about climate change. It isn't. 90%+ of the problem is dysfunctional governments and overpopulation which were most certainly not caused by climate change.

As for crop failures: they have occurred since humans started planting crops. The only difference is we have the option of moving food thanks to cheap transportation costs and record high agricultural productivity in countries that are able to produce good government.

The best solution for the third world is better government. Figuring out how to provide better government in third world countries is a difficult problem but is it is a lot easier to deal with than CO2 emissions because we have lots of working examples of good government today.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 01:21:01 pm
It’s interesting that you are quite capable of linking more than one thing together as long as climate change isn’t one of them. You are quite consistent. Oh well.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 01:26:30 pm
It’s interesting that you are quite capable of linking more than one thing together as long as climate change isn’t one of them. You are quite consistent. Oh well.
I am not one printing story after story in the media claiming these things are all about climate change. Why are you whinging about my opinion which is, simply put, a better explanation of the available facts than we get from the media?
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 01:36:10 pm
I am not one printing story after story in the media claiming these things are all about climate change. Why are you whinging about my opinion which is, simply put, a better explanation of the available facts than we get from the media?

Actually it isn’t but as you say, it is your opinion, to which you are quite entitled.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 01:51:57 pm
Actually it isn’t but as you say, it is your opinion, to which you are quite entitled.
The available evidence is like a Rorschach ink blot. People can and do stretch the evidence to support whatever agenda they have. I don't see why you are so quick to assume that climate change is the dominate explanation for what we seem to agree is a complex multi-factorial problem.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: queenmandy85 on May 05, 2019, 01:57:40 pm
We are only getting a tiny hint of what is coming. We won't start feeling the real impact for a while.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 02:03:22 pm
We are only getting a tiny hint of what is coming. We won't start feeling the real impact for a while.
Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. We have no way to predict the future but we do have a real problem with people using "climate change" as the default explanation for anything bad. As long as people are willing to do this without thinking we cannot have a sensible conversation about the problems we face.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 02:20:20 pm
According to a study done by the National Academy of Science, a 10% reduction of crop yield in Mexico results in 2% more people trying to enter the US from Mexico.

It’s funny that we can predict so many things but no matter how much we study, it we can’t predict the effects of climate change. Odd that is.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 02:53:06 pm
According to a study done by the National Academy of Science, a 10% reduction of crop yield in Mexico results in 2% more people trying to enter the US from Mexico.
1) crop yields have been steadily increasing over 100 years thanks larges to fossil fuels. If there is reduction due to climate change it will not erase the gains. We also do not know that there will be a reduction since farmers are good at adapting.

2) It simply nonsense to claim that a reduction in crop yields definitively is linked to migration because migration only happens if the governments are incapable of managing the problem (i.e. what are the chances of people migrating from the US if crop yields go down?). Therefore, it is more valid to say that bad government leads to migration - not climate change.

It’s funny that we can predict so many things but no matter how much we study, it we can’t predict the effects of climate change. Odd that is.
It is not odd at all. When it comes to climate change controlled experiments are impossible. We don't even have the option of double blind studies which are the gold standard in medicine. This means there is no way to determine what claims have merit and which are nonsense.

But we also have a history of doom mongers to look back on. Remember the population bomb? All of those "predictions" were made based on the best science of the day yet they were spectacularly wrong. Why should we assume these climate change predictions will fare any better?
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 03:52:53 pm
Population has increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7 billion now and is forecast to be 9 billion by 2050. You yourself say population is an issue but somehow the world not being able to feed them will have no effect on human migration. You don't need a blind study to figure out that doesn't make sense. Geez Louise according to you we shouldn't try to forecast anything because we can't do a blind study on the future.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 05:19:53 pm
You yourself say population is an issue but somehow the world not being able to feed them will have no effect on human migration.
We would have problems feeding them no matter what which means the base problem is *over population* not climate change. Your argument is like arguing an obese person should switch to diet soda when the real problem is they eat too much.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 07:36:09 pm
We would have problems feeding them no matter what which means the base problem is *over population* not climate change. Your argument is like arguing an obese person should switch to diet soda when the real problem is they eat too much.

Your argument is people will stay where they are if they are starving and see survival somewhere else. Ain’t going to happen.

Don’t you think that tripling the population in the last 70 years with what it has done to the earths atmosphere and oceans could have any impact on the earths climate? Why would you think it would affect everything but climate? That’s not logical.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 08:02:21 pm
Your argument is people will stay where they are if they are starving and see survival somewhere else. Ain’t going to happen.
We are taking past each other. I am arguing that if people migrate it is not because of climate change - it is because of incompetent governments that are not able to meet their needs. Developed countries generally have competent governments and even if climate change affects food production there is little concern that they will not be able to ensure their people have food.

Don’t you think that tripling the population in the last 70 years with what it has done to the earths atmosphere and oceans could have any impact on the earths climate? Why would you think it would affect everything but climate? That’s not logical.
But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the core problem is over population - not climate change. Climate change may be an aggravating factor but it is not the primary cause. The primary cause is too many people living in societies with incompetent governments.

The only reason the "blame everything on climate change" meme appears in the media so much is because it suits the agenda of a large number of political actors. It is not a fact or even a reasonable hypothesis because it ignores the elephant in the room which is bad government and over population.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 05, 2019, 08:42:03 pm
We are taking past each other. I am arguing that if people migrate it is not because of climate change - it is because of incompetent governments that are not able to meet their needs. Developed countries generally have competent governments and even if climate change affects food production there is little concern that they will not be able to ensure their people have food.
But that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the core problem is over population - not climate change. Climate change may be an aggravating factor but it is not the primary cause. The primary cause is too many people living in societies with incompetent governments.

The only reason the "blame everything on climate change" meme appears in the media so much is because it suits the agenda of a large number of political actors. It is not a fact or even a reasonable hypothesis because it ignores the elephant in the room which is bad government and over population.

There are reasons governments cannot meet needs that have anything to do with the earth itself as far as you are concerned. Bad government is responsible for droughts, hurricanes, warming oceans. Humans can't possibly have anything to do with that even though their numbers have increased 300% in the last 70 years.

I'm not blaming everything on climate change, I'm just incredulous that you completely dismiss it in spite of all the research that says it is real.
 
You are right about one thing, cutting the worlds population in half would solve a lot. I'm glad I won't be around to see how mother nature does it. I do worry about my grand kids though, they didn't sign on for the consequences of our willful ignorance, they have a right to expect better.

Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 05, 2019, 09:43:17 pm
Bad government is responsible for droughts, hurricanes, warming oceans.
There have been droughts, hurricanes and other events from the dawn of time. Humans with good government adapt and their people thrive. Humans with bad government suffer. Look at China under Mao. Millions starved because of bad government. Now there is no serious risk of a large scale famine in China even with climate change. The only thing that changed is government.

I'm not blaming everything on climate change, I'm just incredulous that you completely dismiss it in spite of all the research that says it is real.
Research said stress causes ulcers, red wine is good for you and vaccines cause autism. None of these claims are true. No research can show that climate change is a causal factor because, without controlled experiments, it is simply impossible so separate it out from all of the confounding factors. Any research that claims to do so is highly suspect.
 
You are right about one thing, cutting the worlds population in half would solve a lot. I'm glad I won't be around to see how mother nature does it.
This is my point. Dealing with mother nature requires good government, strong economies and access to cheap energy. Policies that sacrifice that to pursue the mirage of CO2 reductions will be less able to adapt.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 12:19:40 am
Adapt to what? You claim nothing is happening.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 12:55:46 am
Adapt to what? You claim nothing is happening.
You are not reading my arguments. I have never said that climate change is not happening. I am only arguing that the incessant stream of media stories trying to blame everything bad on climate change are wrong headed and a distraction. Climate may be a factor but other things which we actually have more control over are often bigger factors. For example, flood in Quebec may have been affected by climate change but a bigger factor may be land used changes where water that use to sink into the water table is being diverted via sewers and ditches into the rivers. Unlike CO2, land use is something we can actually do something about.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 09:20:20 am
You are not reading my arguments. I have never said that climate change is not happening. I am only arguing that the incessant stream of media stories trying to blame everything bad on climate change are wrong headed and a distraction. Climate may be a factor but other things which we actually have more control over are often bigger factors. For example, flood in Quebec may have been affected by climate change but a bigger factor may be land used changes where water that use to sink into the water table is being diverted via sewers and ditches into the rivers. Unlike CO2, land use is something we can actually do something about.

All those have nothing to do with climate change and it’s effects, they are just other examples of what we have got wrong. Do you plan on moving Richmond, much of Delta and the Fraser Valley? Ever been to Shanghai? Much of the worlds most productive farm land and hundreds of millions of people are located on river deltas. You claim to know the consequences of rising sea levels and changing climate and their costs but don’t think it is worthwhile lifting a finger to mitigate our part in them or even trying to slow them down. Humans emit 22 gigatons of CO2 that the world’s carbon cycle cannot absorb yet you think this can somehow go on forever without us doing anything. You are the one  guilty of the same blind faith you accuse others of. 
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 10:06:10 am
You claim to know the consequences of rising sea levels and changing climate and their costs but don’t think it is worthwhile lifting a finger to mitigate our part in them or even trying to slow them down.
I make no such claim. I only claim that we have limited resources to do anything and pissing away those resources on reducing CO2 is misguided because the tech we have to reduce CO2 emissions will only have a marginal impact at best. It is simply dumb. The resources that we do have need to be directed at adaptation. Whether we like it or not mitigation has to be a secondary objective and only considered when cost effective technologies are available.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 11:12:14 am
I make no such claim. I only claim that we have limited resources to do anything and pissing away those resources on reducing CO2 is misguided because the tech we have to reduce CO2 emissions will only have a marginal impact at best. It is simply dumb. The resources that we do have need to be directed at adaptation. Whether we like it or not mitigation has to be a secondary objective and only considered when cost effective technologies are available.


And yet you believe we can overcome the consequences with technology even though that technology may not exist. It's kind of like the smoker saying, ya I know it can cause cancer but I'll deal with that when I get it.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 11:21:39 am
And yet you believe we can overcome the consequences with technology even though that technology may not exist. It's kind of like the smoker saying, ya I know it can cause cancer but I'll deal with that when I get it.
The tech we need to deal with the consequences is the same tech we have been using for millennia. We are not depending on unknown tech break throughs that may or may not magically appear on a convenient schedule like we are with any CO2 mitigation efforts. It is also about playing the odds. We can't know that the adaptation strategy will be enough but given what we know it is certainly more likely to accomplish something useful.

The tobacco analogy is stupid because no one needs nicotine to live. Our societies would collapse without fossil fuels and that is not likely to change much over the next 30 years.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 01:15:09 pm
How do you know the tech exists, have you done blind studies in the consequences.

It’s not a stupid analogy, after all the tech may exist to cure lung cancer by the time the smoker gets it.

Who is saying we have to stop using fossil fuels right away. You aren’t even willing to begin the process.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 06, 2019, 01:19:03 pm
I only claim that we have limited resources to do anything and pissing away those resources on reducing CO2 is misguided because the tech we have to reduce CO2 emissions will only have a marginal impact at best.

I agree we have limited resources. Those limited resources are our natural resources, not the artificial society created ones.

I am arguing that if people migrate it is not because of climate change - it is because of incompetent governments that are not able to meet their needs

I didn't know you were a communist.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 01:24:29 pm
How do you know the tech exists, have you done blind studies in the consequences.
At the end of the day the consequence is weather. We deal with weather all of the time and have the tech to manage it. Even rising seas have been managed by humans for centuries.

It’s not a stupid analogy, after all the tech may exist to cure lung cancer by the time the smoker gets it.
It is stupid because there is no rational reason for the smoking to keep smoker other than a desire to get high. For society today getting rid of fossil fuels is like telling someone to stop eating. Choosing to stop using them is simply not an option at this time or for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 01:30:58 pm
I agree we have limited resources. Those limited resources are our natural resources, not the artificial society created ones.
False dichotomy. Humans cannot do things collectively without an economy producing more than it needs. It also means our ability to do things collectively is limited by the productive capacity of the economy. Aggressive attempts to reduce CO2 would diminish the productive capacity of the economy and therefore limit our ability to adapt.

Quote
I didn't know you were a communist.
There is a huge range of views on government between communism and anarcho-capitalism.  Saying that government is necessary does not mean government should be involved in everything. Incidentally, communist governments are examples of extremely incompetent governments that cause huge harm (e.g. Mao's great leap forward).
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 05:43:44 pm
At the end of the day the consequence is weather. We deal with weather all of the time and have the tech to manage it. Even rising seas have been managed by humans for centuries.


Rising sea levels are not weather. Rising water temperatures are not weather. Warming oceans aren't able to absorb as much O2. Rising ocean CO2 levels increase, acidification. Both have consequences for its biosphere. The oceans also serve as a buffer that and without it, surface temperature rises would be much higher.

You really have no clue what you are talking about when you claim we can adapt or mitigate.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 06:17:52 pm
You really have no clue what you are talking about when you claim we can adapt or mitigate.
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Granny on May 06, 2019, 06:33:42 pm
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.

It isn't either/or.
It's how much and where and when.
We already have the technologies. It's a question of scaling them up, and scaling fossil fuels down.
In case you haven't noticed, the price of fossil fuels is way down because the demand is shifting to renewables.
I have great faith in young business and industry leaders to see the writing on the wall and shift investments and efforts to industries that will be profitable - are profitable now and will be in the long term in helping us mitigate and adapt to climate change effects.

If we've still got all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket, we might want to rethink that energy strategy. 
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 06:51:34 pm
Unlike you, I have great faith in young business and industry leaders to see the writing on the wall and shift investments and efforts to industries that will be profitable in helping us mitigate and adapt to climate change effects.
You can wish for unicorns and fairy dust too. Just as likely. Your own lack of knowledge is part of the problem. Renewables are not a substitute for baseload. We need nuclear, coal and gas (not enough hydro available to supply our needs). If EVs actually take off we the need for new baseload will become acute and that baseload has to come from coal or gas unless public opinion decides to accept nuclear.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 06, 2019, 06:56:45 pm
Renewables are not a substitute for baseload.

You are looking at things backwards. Instead of building on baseload, look at peaking plants to shore up renewables. Hydro for the most part can be a peaking plant. Natural gas turbines make excellent peaking plants. Yes coal and nuclear are more baseload.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 07:01:51 pm
You are looking at things backwards. Instead of building on baseload, look at peaking plants to shore up renewables. Hydro for the most part can be a peaking plant. Natural gas turbines make excellent peaking plants. Yes coal and nuclear are more baseload.
Peaking plants are inefficient and expensive way to produce energy. Baseload is an essential requirement for a cost effective electric grid and that is not going to change any time soon.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 06, 2019, 07:44:20 pm
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.

How do you know we don't have time, you seem to know everything else? A worst case scenario means we are screwed no matter what we do. You don't even know what adapt means because you don't know what you are going to adapt to. You are just hoping for the best and ignoring the rest.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 06, 2019, 08:48:40 pm
How do you know we don't have time, you seem to know everything else?
It is called playing the odds given the information we have now. It is not about knowing because no one knows what will happen. For example, we could get some break though in energy production tech that completely changes the economics of emission free energy production. But can't assume it will happen and need to be prepared for the real possibility that it does not happen and we can't get rid of CO2 emissions without destroying the economy.

A worst case scenario means we are screwed no matter what we do.
And the societies that will win in such a scenario will be the ones that did not engage in aggressive CO2 emissions control that only increases the cost of adaptation.

You are just hoping for the best and ignoring the rest.
I can say the same about anyone who thinks CO2 emission reduction is a viable strategy.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2019, 12:20:36 am
It is called playing the odds given the information we have now. It is not about knowing because no one knows what will happen. For example, we could get some break though in energy production tech that completely changes the economics of emission free energy production. But can't assume it will happen and need to be prepared for the real possibility that it does not happen and we can't get rid of CO2 emissions without destroying the economy.
And the societies that will win in such a scenario will be the ones that did not engage in aggressive CO2 emissions control that only increases the cost of adaptation.
I can say the same about anyone who thinks CO2 emission reduction is a viable strategy.

It’s not a casino and no societies will win. Some may survive.

You have no strategy other than do nothing and hope for the best.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 12:46:35 am
It’s not a casino and no societies will win. Some may survive.
When dealing with unknowns you have to take a probabilistic approach. Nothing else makes sense. Whatever choices we make it will be a bet and the only thing we can do is try find the bet that will result in the minimum amount of harm. And yes, countries that choose to minimize the damage to their economy caused by over zealous CO2 mitigation will be better off.

You have no strategy other than do nothing and hope for the best.
I do have a strategy. It is rational and attempts to balance the unknowns vs. the harms caused by acting. You just don't like it because it does not suit you. You just want to blindly throw money at mitigation and don't care that it may be completely pointless because that is the only solution you can imagine. You also completely ignore the fact that trying to mitigate CO2 comes with a cost that will hinder our ability to adapt in the future.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 07, 2019, 06:23:07 am
Nature is in its worst shape in human history, UN report says

Nature is in more trouble now than at any other time in human history, with extinction looming over one million species of plants and animals, scientists said Monday in the UN's first comprehensive report on biodiversity.

It's all because of humans, but it's not too late to fix the problem, the report by the United Nations says.

Species loss is accelerating to a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past, the report said. More than half a million species on land "have insufficient habitat for long-term survival" and are likely to go extinct, many within decades, unless their habitats are restored. The oceans are not any better off.

"Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity's own future," said George Mason University biologist Thomas Lovejoy, who has been called the godfather of biodiversity for his research. He was not part of the report.

"The biological diversity of this planet has been really hammered, and this is really our last chance to address all of that," Lovejoy said.


-------

The report's 39-page summary highlighted five ways people are reducing biodiversity:

-Turning forests, grasslands and other areas into farms, cities and other developments. The habitat loss leaves plants and animals homeless. About three-quarters of Earth's land, two-thirds of its oceans and 85 per cent of crucial wetlands have been severely altered or lost, making it harder for species to survive, the report said.
-Overfishing the world's oceans. A third of the world's fish stocks are overfished.
-Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. Almost half of the world's land mammals — not including bats — and nearly a quarter of the birds have already had their habitats hit hard by global warming.
-Polluting land and water. Every year, 300 to 400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents and toxic sludge are dumped into the world's waters.
Allowing invasive species to crowd out native plants and animals. The number of invasive alien species per country has risen 70 per cent since 1970, with one species of bacteria threatening nearly 400 amphibian species.

Fighting climate change and saving species are equally important, the report said, and working on both environmental problems should go hand in hand. Both problems exacerbate each other because a warmer world means fewer species, and a less biodiverse world means fewer trees and plants to remove heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the air, Lovejoy said.

The world's coral reefs are a perfect example of where climate change and species loss intersect. If the world warms another 0.5 degrees Celsius, which other reports say is likely, coral reefs will probably dwindle by 70 to 90 per cent, the report said. At 1 degree Celsius, the report said, 99 per cent of the world's coral will be in trouble.

"Business as usual is a disaster," Watson said.

-------

The IUCN calculated in March that 27,159 species are threatened, endangered or extinct in the wild out of nearly 100,000 species biologists examined in depth. That includes 1,223 mammal species, 1,492 bird species and 2,341 fish species. Nearly half the threatened species are plants.

Scientists have only examined a small fraction of the estimated eight million species on Earth.

The report comes up with one million species in trouble by extrapolating the IUCN's 25 per cent threatened rate to the rest of the world's species and using a lower rate for the estimated 5.5 million species of insects, Watson said.

-------

The report gives only a generic "within decades" timeframe for species loss because it is dependent on many variables, including taking the problem seriously, which can reduce the severity of the projections, Watson said.

"We're in the middle of the sixth great extinction crisis, but it's happening in slow motion," said Conservation International and University of California Santa Barbara ecologist Lee Hannah, who was not part of the report.

Five times in the past, Earth has undergone mass extinctions where much of life on Earth blinked out, like the one that killed the dinosaurs. Watson said the report was careful not to call what's going on now as a sixth big die-off because current levels don't come close to the 75 per cent level in past mass extinctions

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-global-biodiversity-report-1.5124089
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Granny on May 07, 2019, 07:31:56 am
When dealing with unknowns you have to take a probabilistic approach. Nothing else makes sense.
Whose "probabilistic approach" will you accept?
How about NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
"Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.
"
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 07, 2019, 09:08:44 am
When dealing with unknowns you have to take a probabilistic approach. Nothing else makes sense. Whatever choices we make it will be a bet and the only thing we can do is try find the bet that will result in the minimum amount of harm. And yes, countries that choose to minimize the damage to their economy caused by over zealous CO2 mitigation will be better off.
I do have a strategy. It is rational and attempts to balance the unknowns vs. the harms caused by acting. You just don't like it because it does not suit you. You just want to blindly throw money at mitigation and don't care that it may be completely pointless because that is the only solution you can imagine. You also completely ignore the fact that trying to mitigate CO2 comes with a cost that will hinder our ability to adapt in the future.
This is not an unknown, we are the authors of our own demise. Your “strategy” is to just keep doing what we are doing to cause the problem in the first place and hope we can deal with the consequences. Inshallah. As far as countries “choosing” to minimize damage by mitigating CO2 goes, atmospheres and oceans don’t have borders.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 10:08:56 am
This is not an unknown, we are the authors of our own demise.
Sorry, no one really knows what the actual consequences will be and it is simply wrong to say that our "demise" is an inevitable outcome. It is also impossible to know if the so-called consequences so far (e.g. floods) are actually consequences or stuff that would have happened anyways.

Your “strategy” is to just keep doing what we are doing to cause the problem in the first place and hope we can deal with the consequences.
Lets say a doctor said that you might die from a disease in 20 years but does not really know because no one has ever seen the disease before. Lets say then said he wanted to amputate your legs just in case it might help. Would you chop off your legs or would you wait and see?

The problem with your argument is you falsely assume that:
1) significant CO2 reductions can be done without inflicting severe hardship on people;
2) that we actually have the data to tell us that adaptation is not a viable option;

For me 1) is the critical problem. If significant CO2 reductions were possible without inflicting severe hardship then reducing CO2 would be the obvious approach. But that is not the case with the tech we have today. Non-emitting options for energy come with a huge cost and trying to use them will only increase human suffering. I don't believe we should inflict pain on people today given the lack of knowledge about what may or may not happen in the future.
 
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 12:53:37 pm
Peaking plants are inefficient and expensive way to produce energy.

Do you have any data to back that up, or did it just feel right when you pulled it out?
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 01:04:26 pm
Do you have any data to back that up, or did it just feel right when you pulled it out?
Well it is one of the those things that anyone familiar with how the grid works is already aware of. It is a bit like demanding that someone show that 2+2=4.

From wiki:
Quote
Base load and intermediate plants are used preferentially to meet electrical demand because the lower efficiencies of peaker plants make them more expensive to operate.[15].

To understand the economics of power generation you have to understand that the capital cost has to be amortized over the amount of power produced. If a peaking plant is running occasionally the capital cost is amortized over a smaller number of kWH which significantly increases the cost per kWh. This factor is in addition to the lower efficiency of plants designed to stop and start on demand.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: waldo on May 07, 2019, 01:11:57 pm
Well it is one of the those things that anyone familiar with how the grid works is already aware of. It is a bit like demanding that someone show that 2+2=4.

keep spreadin' the myth, hey! (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=baseload+myth)
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 01:19:19 pm
To understand the economics of power generation you have to understand...

... that there are a multitude of components involved in the entire equation, and cherry picking a single component does not address the total situation at all. Yes, you can optimize the performance of a single plant and then something goes wrong and you knock out the entire grid and end up costing bizillions. Power consumption is not static, and never will be. It is highly dynamic, and we must address that.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 01:35:58 pm
Power consumption is not static, and never will be. It is highly dynamic, and we must address that.
This problem is handled quite well by the existing grids because there is always a minimum power requirement which allows the use of super efficient base load sources. This means peaking plants only need to supply a small portion of the power. If you want to get rid of baseload for ideological reasons then costs will go up because peaking plant provide a much greater proportion of power. That is why renewables *always* cause electricity rates to rise whenever a government decides to mandate their deployment.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 02:09:26 pm
This means peaking plants only need to supply a small portion of the power.

You mean like 41%? It is actually more than that, but I took yesterday's data from Ontario to make a quick calculation.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 02:31:47 pm
You mean like 41%? It is actually more than that, but I took yesterday's data from Ontario to make a quick calculation.
Not sure what you are talking about:
http://webroots.ca/static/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelectricity.html

Gas generation is a small fraction of Ontario power production. Hydro - when it is available - can replace gas peakers but hydro resources are finite and depend on the season. Gas is the only reliable and universally available source of peaking power.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 02:36:35 pm
Not sure what you are talking about:

Yesterday's peak power consumption was 41% higher than the low. The annual low and peak would be more representative, but I went with a single day for simplicity. Actual accommodations in the system need to be significantly higher to factor in other issues like failures, etc.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 02:43:10 pm
Yesterday's peak power consumption was 41% higher than the low. The annual low and peak would be more representative, but I went with a single day for simplicity. Actual accommodations in the system need to be significantly higher to factor in other issues like failures, etc.
So? Most of the inter-day variations are predictable and more efficient plants can be brought online for a few hours and shutdown. That is a different problem than running a plant that is changing output constantly because the wind gusts or a cloud rolls by.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 02:46:31 pm
So? Most of the inter-day variations are predictable and more efficient plants can be brought online for a few hours and shutdown. That is a different problem than running a plant that is changing output constantly because the wind gusts or a cloud rolls by.

You realize that the consumption pattern is more varied on both the macro and micro level than wind gusts or clouds.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 03:09:06 pm
You realize that the consumption pattern is more varied on both the macro and micro level than wind gusts or clouds.
Apples and oranges. The daily variable in power consumption is a low frequency wave with small high frequency spikes. You can see the difference in the 5 min graphs:
http://www.ieso.ca/power-data

Wind and solar are fine as long as the high frequency spikes don't exceed the spikes that the system already deals with. As the percentage of wind/solar increases these spikes increase and the cost of supplying peaking power increases. Try to run the entire system off renewables and the cost would be unmanageable.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 07, 2019, 04:17:35 pm
Try to run the entire system off renewables and the cost would be unmanageable.

Nobody is suggesting running the entire system off renewables, yet you repeat that premise continually. Cost however is a different situation, artificial cost is completely manageable, and that is the cost you only seem to recognize.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 07, 2019, 04:25:15 pm
Nobody is suggesting running the entire system off renewables, yet you repeat that premise continually.
Don't be disingenuous. Lots of people suggest that whenever they oppose gas/nuclear/hydro development projects. And whether you like or not cost does matter. When people can't afford to heat their homes in winter they will not accept the notion that they should suffer so some wealthy telsa driver can feel good about themselves.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: cybercoma on May 08, 2019, 09:26:17 am
I am not one printing story after story in the media claiming these things are all about climate change. Why are you whinging about my opinion which is, simply put, a better explanation of the available facts than we get from the media?
Your opinion is not a better explanation though. It's just your own, uneducated opinion.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: cybercoma on May 08, 2019, 09:31:21 am
It is called playing the odds given the information we have now.
You don't seem to understand the odds. You're arguing that there could be a complete 180 degree reversal of the trend lines we're seeing on various metrics of environmental collapse. That on its own is myopic, but where you make it completely asinine is this wild ass belief that the trends will completely reverse if we do nothing.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: cybercoma on May 08, 2019, 09:32:31 am
Whose "probabilistic approach" will you accept?
He supports the "do nothing" approach always. He doesn't support the probabilities.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 09:40:26 am
You don't seem to understand the odds. You're arguing that there could be a complete 180 degree reversal of the trend lines we're seeing on various metrics of environmental collapse. That on its own is myopic, but where you make it completely asinine is this wild ass belief that the trends will completely reverse if we do nothing.
What is asinine is your ridiculous belief that significant reductions in CO2 emission are remotely plausible. Everything you say about my opinion applies to you when it comes to this question. The main difference is I acknowledge the uncertainties involved and try to balance them. You just call people names if they don't share your delusional belief that significant  reductions in global CO2 emissions are possible. In the end adaptation will be the the *only* option on the table. The only question is whether we **** away trillions on various scams designed to pretend we are doing something or do we focus on what we will actually need to do?
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: cybercoma on May 08, 2019, 09:42:37 am
Did I say anything about CO2 emissions here? I sure didn't, but you seem to have a whole position laid out for me and are arguing against that. What is that called again?

You care to address the problem with your do nothing argument? Namely, the fact that you suggest climate change will reverse itself, in spite of the trend lines, even if we do nothing? That's clearly an indefensible position and certainly doesn't "play to the probabilities" as you claim.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 09:52:10 am
Did I say anything about CO2 emissions here? I sure didn't, but you seem to have a whole position laid out for me and are arguing against that. What is that called again?
If you jump into a discussion the assumption is you are building on the arguments. It is not my fault if you don't read what was written before and interject some irrelevant commentary.

You care to address the problem with your do nothing argument? Namely, the fact that you suggest climate change will reverse itself, in spite of the trend lines, even if we do nothing? That's clearly an indefensible position and certainly doesn't "play to the probabilities" as you claim.
Speaking of strawmen. I never said or suggested that climate would 'reverse itself'. My argument is also not to "do nothing". My argument is we well need to adapt and resources should be spent on adaptation. CO2 reductions for the sake fof CO2 reductions are pointless and often harmful.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Omni on May 08, 2019, 10:14:19 am
If you jump into a discussion the assumption is you are building on the arguments. It is not my fault if you don't read what was written before and interject some irrelevant commentary.
Speaking of strawmen. I never said or suggested that climate would 'reverse itself'. My argument is also not to "do nothing". My argument is we well need to adapt and resources should be spent on adaptation. CO2 reductions for the sake fof CO2 reductions are pointless and often harmful.

You actually think weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels while we can still (somewhat) breath the air is "harmful"? P...lease!
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Granny on May 08, 2019, 12:55:08 pm
You actually think weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels while we can still (somewhat) breath the air is "harmful"? P...lease!

The only people who refuse to acknowledge the damage of burning fossil fuels are those whose paycheque depends on it.
I think they are best ignored.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: cybercoma on May 08, 2019, 01:23:09 pm
If you jump into a discussion the assumption is you are building on the arguments. It is not my fault if you don't read what was written before and interject some irrelevant commentary.
Speaking of strawmen. I never said or suggested that climate would 'reverse itself'. My argument is also not to "do nothing". My argument is we well need to adapt and resources should be spent on adaptation. CO2 reductions for the sake fof CO2 reductions are pointless and often harmful.

That's your argument is it?

Except that you said "we just don't know what will happen in the future" when people suggest any sort of adaptation away from the status quo (in spite of your insistence on adaptation), which sounds an awful lot like "let's do nothing and hope nature sorts itself out." If it's not, then the failure isn't my understanding but on your communication.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 01:44:12 pm
Except that you said "we just don't know what will happen in the future" when people suggest any sort of adaptation away from the status quo (in spite of your insistence on adaptation), which sounds an awful lot like "let's do nothing and hope nature sorts itself out." If it's not, then the failure isn't my understanding but on your communication.
Nonsense. Adaptation is what humans have done for millennia and it is the only way out of whatever problem will occur. CO2 emission reduction is not going to happen no matter how many grand pronouncements are made. That is why CO2 reduction for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions is stupid policy - especially if policy is designed to allow people to pretend to reduce emissions with carbon trading.

It is clear that you value doing pointless things just so you can feel better cause "we are doing something". I have no patience for such hypocritical nonsense.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: ?Impact on May 08, 2019, 04:27:03 pm
Adaptation is what humans have done for millennia and it is the only way out of whatever problem will occur.

I am so glad that the idiots that followed that stupid notion before my time are long gone. I grew up along the St. Lawrence in Montreal, and it was a sewer that nobody would go near. Luckily more recent generations have decided that adaptation was a moronic idea, and decided to work on cleaning it up over the past few decades. I first swam in it about 3-4 years ago, and there is a beach opening up in my hometown this summer (last one in the area closed in the 1940's). It still has a long ways to go, but is immensely better than what I grew up with and already far better than many other rivers and lakes I have been around.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2019, 05:00:42 pm
Nonsense. Adaptation is what humans have done for millennia and it is the only way out of whatever problem will occur. CO2 emission reduction is not going to happen no matter how many grand pronouncements are made. That is why CO2 reduction for the sake of reducing CO2 emissions is stupid policy - especially if policy is designed to allow people to pretend to reduce emissions with carbon trading.

It is clear that you value doing pointless things just so you can feel better cause "we are doing something". I have no patience for such hypocritical nonsense.

Like we adapted to the bubonic plague and Spanish influenza. No we didn't, in the first case we got rid of the source,(ring a bell?) in the second, we are just waiting for the next one.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 05:01:35 pm
It still has a long ways to go, but is immensely better than what I grew up with and already far better than many other rivers and lakes I have been around.
A perfect example of where our money should be going when it is spent on protecting the environment. i.e. concrete actions that have a chance of actually making a difference.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 05:03:49 pm
Like we adapted to the bubonic plague and Spanish influenza. No we didn't, in the first case we got rid of the source,(ring a bell?) in the second, we are just waiting for the next one.
You need to dispense with the notion that "getting rid of the source" is a viable option when it comes to CO2. The choices are 1) waste money on pointless gestures that make no difference or 2) spend money on things that actually do make a difference such as better flood control measures.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2019, 07:14:49 pm
You need to dispense with the notion that "getting rid of the source" is a viable option when it comes to CO2. The choices are 1) waste money on pointless gestures that make no difference or 2) spend money on things that actually do make a difference such as better flood control measures.

Ultimately it is the only option. What flood control measures? You don't even have a clue what will be required, you just have blind faith it will happen.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 07:29:48 pm
Ultimately it is the only option. What flood control measures? You don't even have a clue what will be required, you just have blind faith it will happen.
It is certainly more rational than your blind faith that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Remember that I am not claiming to know that adaption will work. I am only claiming that the chances that adaption will accomplish something useful are many times greater than the chances that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Lets take flood control: we know how to build dams and dikes. We can pay to move people from high risk areas. More importantly, every dollar spent on dams or dikes or relocation will incrementally help some people.

OTOH, we can spend the same amount of money subsidizing wind and/solar or electric vehicles and reduce CO2 emission by some fraction of a percentage. All that money helps no one because the effect will be too small to matter.

To make matters worse, when we finally realize that adaption is the only option we will have made the cost of adaption higher by making it more expensive to run the heavy equipment and produce the concrete needed for dams and dikes. IOW, CO2 mitigation policies will harm more people in long run because they hinder our ability to adapt.

I understand the instinct to try and fix the problem at the source but in this case your instincts are simply wrong. The better strategy is to deal with the consequences as best as we can.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2019, 07:48:59 pm
It is certainly more rational than your blind faith that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Remember that I am not claiming to know that adaption will work. I am only claiming that the chances that adaption will accomplish something useful are many times greater than the chances that CO2 mitigation will accomplish something useful.

Lets take flood control: we know how to build dams and dikes. We can pay to move people from high risk areas. More importantly, every dollar spent on dams or dikes or relocation will incrementally help some people.

OTOH, we can spend the same amount of money subsidizing wind and/solar or electric vehicles and reduce CO2 emission by some fraction of a percentage. All that money helps no one because the effect will be too small to matter.

To make matters worse, when we finally realize that adaption is the only option we will have made the cost of adaption higher by making it more expensive to run the heavy equipment and produce the concrete needed for dams and dikes. IOW, CO2 mitigation policies will harm more people in long run because they hinder our ability to adapt.

I understand the instinct to try and fix the problem at the source but in this case your instincts are simply wrong. The better strategy is to deal with the consequences as best as we can.

If CO2 is the cause of climate change, it will continue to do so as long as we continue to pump it into the atmosphere and oceans. You can't cure the consequences of alcoholism by continuing to drink.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 08:08:09 pm
If CO2 is the cause of climate change, it will continue to do so as long as we continue to pump it into the atmosphere and oceans. You can't cure the consequences of alcoholism by continuing to drink.
Again with the faulty analogies. No one needs to drink to live so the obvious solution is to stop drinking. Emitting CO2 is a necessary byproduct of modern society akin to the sewage that is produced by all our cities and farms. According to your logic humans should stop producing sewage because of the harms this sewage causes to the environment and building sewage treatment plants is an action only supported by the "deniers". I don't find such an argument to be rational.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2019, 10:00:22 pm
Again with the faulty analogies. No one needs to drink to live so the obvious solution is to stop drinking. Emitting CO2 is a necessary byproduct of modern society akin to the sewage that is produced by all our cities and farms. According to your logic humans should stop producing sewage because of the harms this sewage causes to the environment and building sewage treatment plants is an action only supported by the "deniers". I don't find such an argument to be rational.

If what you are doing is killing you or your environment, the only solution is to stop doing it. That's being rational. If CO2 is at present a necessary byproduct of modern society and it is doing possible irreversible damage to our environment, we need to start the process of changing that. Our reliance on fossil fuels is not cast in stone.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 10:18:35 pm
If CO2 is at present a necessary byproduct of modern society and it is doing possible irreversible damage to our environment, we need to start the process of changing that. Our reliance on fossil fuels is not cast in stone.
Sure start the process by researching tech, adding carbon taxes or other measures that can be shown to be cost effective. But is also necessary to be realistic about what is likely to be accomplished over the next 30-50 years given the tech that we currently have available. The short answer is not much. If the alarmists are to believed and we can't wait 50 years then we are screwed and adaptation is the only option. If the alarmists are wrong then there is no rush and we can adapt as required while we hunt for alternatives to CO2 emitting energy.

There is simply no scenario where adaption can be ignored as strategy. There is no scenario where doing stupid ineffective things to pretend to reduce CO2 makes sense.

One thing to keep in mind: the people screaming the most about the "climate crisis" tend to be the people most opposed to nuclear power. This tells me that these people are being dishonest and don't really think it is a crisis. If they did they would not quibble about the risks of nuclear power - they would insist that every zero-emission power source be used.

Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 08, 2019, 11:04:01 pm
Sure start the process by researching tech, adding carbon taxes or other measures that can be shown to be cost effective. But is also necessary to be realistic about what is likely to be accomplished over the next 30-50 years given the tech that we currently have available. The short answer is not much. If the alarmists are to believed and we can't wait 50 years then we are screwed and adaptation is the only option. If the alarmists are wrong then there is no rush and we can adapt as required while we hunt for alternatives to CO2 emitting energy.

There is simply no scenario where adaption can be ignored as strategy. There is no scenario where doing stupid ineffective things to pretend to reduce CO2 makes sense.

One thing to keep in mind: the people screaming the most about the "climate crisis" tend to be the people most opposed to nuclear power. This tells me that these people are being dishonest and don't really think it is a crisis. If they did they would not quibble about the risks of nuclear power - they would insist that every zero-emission power source be used.

We're screwed then. The result will be the same as any other addiction when there is no will to break it. That is the only logical conclusion.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 08, 2019, 11:46:22 pm
We're screwed then. The result will be the same as any other addiction when there is no will to break it. That is the only logical conclusion.
Again with the irrelevant analogies. Emitting CO2 is like producing sewage. It is an unavoidable consequence of human society. The only difference from sewage is some yet be be discovered future tech might reduce the need or, more likely, allow us to build the equivalent of CO2 sewage plants economically. Until we find that tech we need to live with consequences and hope that doom mongers are completely wrong just like every doom monger that has appeared in the past.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2019, 12:11:21 am
Again with the irrelevant analogies. Emitting CO2 is like producing sewage. It is an unavoidable consequence of human society. The only difference from sewage is some yet be be discovered future tech might reduce the need or, more likely, allow us to build the equivalent of CO2 sewage plants economically. Until we find that tech we need to live with consequences and hope that doom mongers are completely wrong just like every doom monger that has appeared in the past.

What you are saying Tim is that it is impossible for the human race to do itself and much of the rest of the planet in. The earth has never had to contend with over 7 billion humans polluting it before. You are relying on faith alone.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Omni on May 09, 2019, 12:14:10 am
The only people who refuse to acknowledge the damage of burning fossil fuels are those whose paycheque depends on it.
I think they are best ignored.


And I hasten to add I don't blame the folks who work the gas pumps for wanting to keep their jobs. Resolutions have to come from a little higher up. 
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 09, 2019, 12:17:32 am
What you are saying Tim is that it is impossible for the human race to do itself and much of the rest of the planet in. The earth has never had to contend with over 7 billion humans polluting it before. You are relying on faith alone.
Why do think that pissing away money on futile gestures to pretend to reduce CO2 emissions is anything other than blind faith?
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Omni on May 09, 2019, 12:26:27 am
Again with the irrelevant analogies. Emitting CO2 is like producing sewage. It is an unavoidable consequence of human society. The only difference from sewage is some yet be be discovered future tech might reduce the need or, more likely, allow us to build the equivalent of CO2 sewage plants economically. Until we find that tech we need to live with consequences and hope that doom mongers are completely wrong just like every doom monger that has appeared in the past.


You apparently have not been able to understand what is meant by the phrase "sequestered CO2" and what is produced when we burn fossil fuels.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: wilber on May 09, 2019, 08:51:02 am
Why do think that pissing away money on futile gestures to pretend to reduce CO2 emissions is anything other than blind faith?

You obstinately refuse to acknowledge that what humans are doing to this planet is not a natural phenomena and there is no reason to believe that being able to adapt is a given. While I sincerely wish I am wrong, I am not the one acting on blind faith. Basically you are saying that if you drink enough arsenic, you can adapt to it. You can’t, eventually enough builds up in your system that it kills you. We are repeating ourselves here and I don’t think we are getting anywhere.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: TimG on May 10, 2019, 09:18:54 pm
You obstinately refuse to acknowledge that what humans are doing to this planet is not a natural phenomena and there is no reason to believe that being able to adapt is a given.
I never said that. I am saying that:

if we can't adapt then emission reductions are also futile and we are screwed;
if we can adapt then emission reductions are still futile but also cause harm by limiting our ability to adapt;

There is no plausible future scenario where emission reductions makes sense as a primary policy objective.

That does not mean we should not make some effort to reduce emissions. Just that these efforts should be limited to things which are cost effective. The more important point is we need to reject the notion that emission reductions will make any difference because they can't.
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 03:07:31 am
The more important point is we need to reject the notion that emission reductions will make any difference because they can't.
Link?
Try this one
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/482/cleaning-the-air-would-limit-short-term-climate-warming/
What did you find? Would reducing black carbon and ozone have a significant climate impact?
The answer is unequivocally yes. For climate, putting control measures in place could eliminate about half the warming we'll otherwise face over the next 40 years.

Does that mean reducing carbon dioxide isn't important?
No, not at all. Over the long-term, carbon dioxide increases are the primary driver of climate change. In order to mitigate climate change, there is no way we can ignore or overlook carbon dioxide. But we could make a major dent in climate change in the near term by controlling black carbon and ozone.


Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Michael Hardner on November 26, 2020, 04:54:17 am
Zombie mink are rising from the grave.

2020 DOES IT AGAIN

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/11/25/covid-19-denmark-mink-rising-from-the-dead/6426378002/
Title: Re: The End of the World Thread
Post by: Queefer Sutherland on November 26, 2020, 12:29:39 pm
Zombie mink are rising from the grave.

2020 DOES IT AGAIN

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/11/25/covid-19-denmark-mink-rising-from-the-dead/6426378002/

So COVID is a zombie virus.  I knew it.