Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28583 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #705 on: June 01, 2019, 02:14:13 pm »
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense. Unfortunately, the debate has been polarized by people that push all kinds of irrational actions because they have beeen persuaded by alarmists peddling fantasies and hypotheticals as if they are foregone conclusions.

So you are still trying to flog this weary, worn out concept that the vast majority of professionally trained, peer reviewed climate scientists are simply "peddling fantasies and hypothetical s". Who then will decide "when talking about it makes economic sense"? The 3% of deniers? Probably too late by then, if they ever come around.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #706 on: June 01, 2019, 02:50:12 pm »
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense.

When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"

Do you mean "makes economic sense" ...
immediately today?
quarterly?
1 year?
2 years?
5 years?
a generation of children?
2 generations ?
7 generations of children?

How far ahead do you plan for "economic sense"?

More details on those 'sensible' economic plans, please.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #707 on: June 01, 2019, 03:03:09 pm »
When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"

Do you mean "makes economic sense" ...
immediately today?
quarterly?
1 year?
2 years?
5 years?
a generation of children?
2 generations ?
7 generations of children?

How far ahead do you plan for "economic sense"?

More details on those 'sensible' economic plans, please.

Perhaps "economic sense" in the vein of as more and more arctic sea ice continues to melt we can have more and moreViking Cruise ships sailing through the NW passage and that should generate some revenue. 
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #708 on: June 01, 2019, 03:04:01 pm »
When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

 
« Last Edit: June 01, 2019, 03:10:40 pm by TimG »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #709 on: June 01, 2019, 03:18:20 pm »
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

Where you seem to have a problem understanding the economy is to realize the billions of subsidies that continue to pour into fossil fuel producers to this day. Then of course it will be a further strain on taxpayers to repair the environmental damage done by that industry. Better to put those subsidies into renewables and not get hit with the double whammy.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #710 on: June 01, 2019, 03:40:51 pm »
Perhaps "economic sense" in the vein of as more and more arctic sea ice continues to melt we can have more and moreViking Cruise ships sailing through the NW passage and that should generate some revenue.
Ya, there's oil up there! Lol

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #711 on: June 01, 2019, 03:47:40 pm »
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
100 years!
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!
You are hilarious.
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!
Good one, TimGod!
'We have to wait 100 years to tackle emissions because we can't afford it now.'

Funniest thing I've read in ages!


Quote
From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

Thanks.

/sarcasm
« Last Edit: June 01, 2019, 06:17:15 pm by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #712 on: June 01, 2019, 05:11:48 pm »
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

So lets see, the money we have now is worth more than it will be in 100 years, but we will be richer in the future. Yep that's some interesting economics. I'm sure the top 1% will continue to thrive even as blue collar jobs are lost to robots. But that's more economics. More to the point here is that in 100 years we will already have run out of oil 50 years ago. Coal will either have, or be about to run out by then as well. Maybe we should be smart and get out ahead of the game, even if you don't care for the environment.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #713 on: June 02, 2019, 11:12:35 am »
The questions that matter are whether we can do anything other than adapt.
Even when you manage to corner member TimG into actually addressing the practicality, logistics, timelines, etc., of his perpetual "AdaptOnly" bleating, he won't commit to adapting to anything on any timeline!

that forever Adapt-R-Us-Only sentiment that refuses to accept any accompanying prevention & mitigation approaches, doesn't get enough props! That uber-popular right-wing "journalist"/Trump apologist, Ben Shapiro, recently made a foray into climate change discussion... Harry Brewis had a go at him in this linked video!
Funny Funny x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #714 on: June 02, 2019, 11:39:25 am »
I just want to highlight this TimG quote:

However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about

TimG has given up his climate change denial stance.
We are in agreement there.

But as to what we do about it, he's still advocating 'nothing at this time':
 
Quote
... when it makes economic sense.

So I howled with laughter at that. Lol
« Last Edit: June 02, 2019, 11:41:21 am by Granny »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5630
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #715 on: June 05, 2019, 07:07:11 pm »
I just want to highlight this TimG quote:

TimG has given up his climate change denial stance.
We are in agreement there.

But as to what we do about it, he's still advocating 'nothing at this time':
 
So I howled with laughter at that. Lol

I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #716 on: June 05, 2019, 08:00:08 pm »
I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused.
The problem is you refuse to listen to the arguments I actually make and instead assume that anyone that criticizes anything about climate policy is a "denier". The opinion that I had for years is:

1) Not all science is equal. Fields where hypotheses can be refuted or confirmed with real world testing are fields where the real world can be used to settle scientific disagreements. In fields where such real world tests are not possible then science is reduced to nothing but the opinions of academics.

2) When science is driven by the opinions of academics instead of the real world then politics matters and it is very easy to get trapped in a cycle of group think that prevents the academic community from honestly assessing the information available.

3) Climate scientists have repeatedly demonstrated numerous symptoms of group think which means any claims made by people working in the field need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

4) Notwithstanding the problems in 1-3) the basic science of GHGs and human emissions can be confirmed with real world testing which means GHGs are potentially problematic even if we have no idea what the eventual harms may be. i.e. the fact that harm cannot be ruled out is enough to argue that we should make effort to reduce GHGs emissions.

5) The economically and technically viable options for GHGs emission reductions are very limited so any policy based on promising to reduce GHGs by X% by some date are simply dumb. All we can do is invest in R&D and make sure that no regulatory barriers prevent economically  and technically viable solutions from being deployed.

6) We have to accept the reality that GHG reductions cannot prevent whatever future harm may occur so we will need to prepare to adapt. This is not about choosing to adapt instead of mitigating, it is about honestly assessing the tech available to us and acknowledging the limits of that tech instead of wasting resources on policies that are doomed to fail because it makes some people feel better.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 08:31:55 pm by TimG »
Agree Agree x 1 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #717 on: June 05, 2019, 08:35:56 pm »
Honey bees are going extinct because of excessive use of pesticides in crops and certain blood-sucking parasites that only reproduce in bee colonies. It’s true that the extinction of bees would mean the end of humanity.

"For many of us, honeybees are annoying. We think that their only purpose is to keep buzzing around and dropping their formic acid-laden stings on random people (this impression will certainly change when we stop getting spoonfuls of sweet honey in our morning cereal).

The truth is, honeybees are crucial elements of our environment, and almost never get the credit that they deserve.

If bees didn’t exist, humans wouldn’t either.

Bee extinction – Why would it affect us?
Out of the 100 crop species that provide us with 90% of our food, 35% are pollinated by bees, birds and bats (source). It’s that simple.

Bees are the primary initiators of reproduction among plants, as they transfer pollen from the male stamens to the female pistils."

Since 2006, the population of bees has declined considerably (source). Pesticides, disease, parasites, and poor weather due to global warming have played a major role in this worrying decline."



If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Like Like x 2 Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #718 on: June 07, 2019, 12:01:48 pm »
I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused.

The fossil bosses (at least any who are smarter than the flat-earthers) have pretty much abandoned climate change denial and the contribution of emissions.

Now it's just economic and technical-sounding arguments for the short-term: continuing fossil-fuel production because renewables 'aren't ready'. 

Those are both just short-term challenges, good reasons to wind down fossil fuel subsidies and ramp up support for development and implementation of renewables.

I am not being facetious when I say ... the environmrntally-compromised lands of the oil fields might be a good place for massive wind-solar farms ... if energy companies broaden their horizons a bit.
For domestic use, though, not for mass export for profit like they're trying to do with oil - ie, exporting their emissions to China. Lol

Environmental assessments/NEB approvals and court challenges are now trending toward including both upstream emissions (production) and downstream emissions (use of product - ie, burning fossil fuels for power, heating, vehicles, etc.). If that trend continues, oil operations and pipeline proposals (even for mass export to China for burning there) will count against the companies: Proving the profitability of the operation will also prove its lack of environmental viability.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/08/23/energy-east-pipeline-to-review-upstream-downstream-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/1/neb-mulls-request-broaden-tmx-review-consider-upstream-downstream-ghgs/
« Last Edit: June 07, 2019, 12:33:00 pm by Granny »

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #719 on: June 07, 2019, 12:21:15 pm »
The fossil bosses (at least any who are smarter than the flat-earthers) have pretty much abandoned climate change denial and the contribution of emissions.

Now it's just economic and technical-sounding arguments for the short-term: continuing fossil-fuel production because renewables 'aren't ready'. 

Those are both just short-term challenges.

I had an interesting conversation with an Ontario person currently transplanted to Edmonton, who said that the oil-workers there are very cranky people.
Apparently having the highest average income in the country ($94k vs Canada $70k) makes people unhappy!

Not unexpected, really:
https://www.marketwatch.com/storythe-dark-reasons-so-many-rich-people-are-miserable-human-beings
“We think external things we buy will bring us happiness, but then we get them and we wonder ‘what’s next?” she explains. “That [next thing] has to be bigger and better” than what we had before and than what other people around us have, she adds.

The problem with this, of course, is that plenty of research shows that most material possessions don’t make us happier -- instead, it’s things like experiences and having more time to do things we love -- and spend time with people we love -- that drive happiness. [/i]

If you're working lots of overtime to afford the house and the toys and the bragging rights ... quality of life suffers. And then there's the fear that the oil business is threatened too. That can't be an easy feeling.

It has nothing to do with money.  It's the lifestyle.  Tons of oilfield workers do shifts of 70+ hours a week, and 24 on/4 off shifts.  This is not unique to the oil and gas industry.  The same can be said for miners, forestry workers, hydroelectric workers, etc. It's not an easy lifestyle.
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List