There's no need to tell me to stop doing something that I haven't done.
What you haven't done is stand up for me when Benkei told me to "shut the fuck up" and when Mikie directed abusive language at Agree-to-Disagree. But this isn't the place for a discussion of your short comings. Open a feedback thread if you have anything else to say.
Not to beat a dead climate denial horse, but to go back to an earlier discussion about “carbon footprints” (the fossil fuel engineered way of shifting blame to the average citizen):
They found those who make enough income to be in the top 10 percent of American households are responsible for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. The top 1 percent of households accounted for 15 to 17 percent of the nation’s emissions, with investment holdings making up 38 to 42 percent of their emissions.
Then there were “super-emitters” with extremely high overall greenhouse gas emissions, corresponding to about the top 0.1 percent of households. About 15 days of emissions from a super-emitter was equal to a lifetime of emissions for someone in the poorest 10 percent in America.
The team found that the highest emissions linked to income came from White, non-Hispanic homes, and the lowest came from Black households. Emissions peaked until age 45 to 54, and then declined.
But yeah, let’s not blame the fossil industry (“only giving people what they want”) or the wealthiest Americans/Wall Street, let’s focus our attention on individuals and their carbon footprints.
Stupidity knows no bounds on this issue.
unenlightenedAugust 18, 2023 at 09:47#8315570 likes
Heresy of the day.
Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown.
Reply to Tzeentch Well, I did love not having planes fly over my head every minute during the high season so I'm game!
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 18, 2023 at 21:17#8316510 likes
Thoughts for the day:
Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.
Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
Reply to Agree to Disagree
If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 19, 2023 at 00:51#8317060 likes
If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on.
The following 3 articles show that there is a very positive side to cows.
Here are some highlights:
- Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.
- Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?
- beef cattle turn low-quality feed into lots of high-quality protein for human nutrition.
- Grazing of pastures by livestock helps remove GHG from the air by stimulating more plant growth, which accelerates the absorption of CO2 from the air, turning it into carbon in plants and soil.
Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.
It goes up into the atmosphere first. Methane is lighter than air. But yes, increased CO2 is good for plants.
"Looking at remote sensing data from NASA's satellites, we've discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.". NASA
A new study published Thursday in the journal PLOS Climate found the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for almost half of planet-heating pollution in the US, and called on governments to shift away from “regressive” taxes on the carbon-intensity of what people buy and focus on taxing climate-polluting investments instead.
If only governments would do that, but I have little confidence that they will. It's not just governments and industry but the voters; if we all consistently voted against any political party that did not call for decreased consumption, massively increased taxes on the wealthy, and, fro example restrictions on the size of newly produced ICE vehicles and heavier taxes on existing vehicles based on their CO2 production, then things would change. But we don't.
It seems to me that most people don't really care beyond paying lip service to the slogans that say "something should be done about global warming" and will vote against any political party that threatens to introduce policies that will impact negatively on the lifestyles they have become accustomed to.
When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 19, 2023 at 03:23#8317380 likes
It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.
Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.
Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.
“Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”
Your ignorance (and logic) is embarrassing. Try reading about this subject.
Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”
That's actually true. Young trees take up a significantly higher amount of CO2 than old trees, so harvesting wood isn't a problem if it's done sustainably, and as my recent post pointed out, we've gained a whole Amazon rainforest since the 1980s due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's truly your ignorance that is embarrassing. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. It just really is.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 19, 2023 at 14:05#8318070 likes
How did the livestock issue end up on your radar? Are you a farmer?
Not a farmer. I was a computer programmer / software tester for about 40 years.
I had been reading about how cows are very bad for global warming because they emit greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2 and methane).
I wondered how many cows there are in the world. There are just under 1 billion (about 1 cow for every 8 humans).
I thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).
Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is a total waste of time and resources. As I said earlier:
- Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.
- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 19, 2023 at 14:10#8318090 likes
Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.
Please explain how cows increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.
Remember that carbon atoms are not being created or destroyed. So they are easy to account for.
thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).
Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is
I don't think most people are worried about cows. It would turn our world upside down to stop using coal and natural gas. Once we figure that out we can worry about any other contributions we're making by way of agriculture.
One thing you're not mentioning though is that cows don't usually just eat grass. They feed them corn, which requires fertilizers that put CO2 to the atmosphere.
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.
Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
You really can’t see it, huh?
Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):
- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.
- We burn those plants.
- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.
That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
Just read this from the denialist WSJ opinion pages, extolling the CEO of a major polluter. Laughed out loud.
Mr. Huntsman first began to entertain doubts about climate orthodoxy in the years after he saw Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” “His story was so well laid out, so precise,” Mr. Huntsman says. “At certain times, certain events would happen, certain measurements would be reached.” They didn’t and weren’t. [Actually, they have.]
It wasn’t a sudden “Aha” moment, he says, but he began to think about other dire predictions that had people panicked not long ago. “In the ’70s [here it comes…] we were going into an ice age. Then we went to acid rain—in six or seven years that was going to destroy all the oak trees and pine trees, and New England would be this deforested area. Then the ozone was going to disappear. And then we got to global warming, and we were all going to fry to death.”
Fossils don't burn, Sparky. They're made out of rock.
They don't burn, Sparky, because they ain't got no carbon left in them. Fossilised carbon deposits is coal and oil and tar, and they burns pretty good.
They don't burn, Sparky, because they ain't got no carbon left in them. Fossilised carbon deposits is coal and oil and tar, and they burns pretty good.
Yep. It takes a bunch of pressure to turn old fossils into coal or oil.
thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run)
The problem with cows is less CO2 and more methane CH4. Cows digest grass/feed through enteric fermentation which produces methane as a by-product--those 4 stomachs... Methane is a much more potent green house gas than CO2 because it absorbs more solar heat. Cows are not the only source of methane: leakage from natural gas operations, rotting vegetation, rotting thawed permafrost soils. Methane also occurs as a hydrate -- water and methane combined in fragile solid deposits in the ocean.
Cows could disappear and methane would still be a significant contributor to global heating,
In various parts of the world, petroleum has seeped out into pools, which then evaporated, forming thick tars. Think of the LeBrea tar pits in L.A. Ancient people found various uses for these substances. Another source of very sticky resin comes from birch bark. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both extracted a glue from birch bark. Amber is fossilized pine resin.
Pitch, resin, asphalt, and tar name the same (and different) substances. Yes, confusing. It gets worse: plastics derived from petroleum are also called resins.
The sap of pine trees is called resin.
Pitch, asphalt, and tar are forms of petroleum.
A violinist uses a small block of "rosin" or "resin" to increase the stickiness of the horsehairs on the bow. Use the song, "Rosin the beau" as an mnemonic device to connect resin with horsehair. The "bow" in the song is inconveniently spelled "beau" which spoils the whole thing, but never mind.
Pitch, asphalt, and tar have all been used as sealants for boats, wine barrels, and other leaky things.
Tree-sourced resin (or rosin) is used for skateboards to prevent cracking, chipping, and breakage. Turpentine from certain pine trees has been used medicinally for treatment of cough, gonorrhea, and rheumatism. Tar water, resin steeped in water, used to be recommended by doctors for illnesses such as smallpox, ulcers and syphilis.
If you should get a case of gonorrhea, smallpox, or syphilis, I strongly recommend that you not resort to turpentine as a cure.
Fossil fuels are fossilised plants (and some animal remnants).
— @Benkei
I think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. An actual fossil won't burn because it's made out of rock.
The word "fossil" is leading us astray here. Fossils are plants or animals whose tissues have been replaced by minerals. The original animal is altogether absent (except for insects trapped in fossilized amber).
Coal formed because during the carboniferous period, there were no fungi to break down lignin. So, as the masses of vegetation died, accumulated, sank, were buried deeply, heat and pressure cooked the vegetative mess into coal. Minerals did not replace the vegetative matter: If they did, one would have petrified wood, which is interesting, but can't burn.
The Carboniferous Period came to an end with the rise of fungi which were capable of turning the dead plant matter into soil -- no more coal formation.
"Petroleum, also called crude oil, is formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria". All that stuff wasn't fossilized. If it was, it would resemble limestone more than grease.
Kerogen is incompletely formed petroleum and makes up [i]shale oil[/I].
The Sinclair Oil Company not withstanding, dead dinosaurs are not the source of crude oil.
think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal.
No, this is again wrong. Pressure and heat cause the fossilisation of plant matter. It's not that plants fossilise and then under pressure turn into coal.
Reply to Mikie I asked Google whether coal is a rock or not and got two answers:
Why coal is considered as rock?
Being composed of carbon, coal forms a carbonaceous deposit. Having been transported and accumulated in a single deposit it is sedimentary. Having undergone metamorphosis and petrification it is a rock. Consequently it is reasonable to classify coal as a carbonaceous sedimentary rock.
Oct 12, 2015
Why is coal not a rock?
Coal differs from every other kind of rock in that it is made of organic carbon: the actual remains, not just mineralized fossils, of dead plants. Today, the vast majority of dead plant matter is consumed by fire and decay, returning its carbon to the atmosphere as the gas carbon dioxide.
Jan 23, 2020
Reply to Benkei To repeat the point: the term "fossilization" is tricky.
I consider a fossil to be "a plant or animal whose tissue has been completely replaced by mineral substances; no part of the animal remains in the fossil--only the form". Petrified wood, or petrified dinosaur bones are mineral replacements of the original tissue. The original tree or theropod is altogether absent--gone, missing, kaput.
Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. If they were actual "fossils" they could not be used as fuel.
So, "fossil fuels" are a handy figure of speech, but they do not actually describe coal and oil.,
Being composed of carbon, coal forms a carbonaceous deposit. Having been transported and accumulated in a single deposit it is sedimentary. Having undergone metamorphosis and petrification it is a rock. Consequently it is reasonable to classify coal as a carbonaceous sedimentary rock.
Oct 12, 2015
Yes, I guess that's true. I just don't normally think of coal as a rock. Have you ever been through West Virginia and seen the huge bands of coal in the cliffs beside the highway? Awesome.
"The theory that fossil fuels formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants by exposure to heat and pressure in Earth's crust over millions of years was first introduced by Andreas Libavius "in his 1597 Alchemia [Alchymia]" and later by Mikhail Lomonosov "as early as 1757 and certainly by 1763".[23] The first use of the term "fossil fuel" occurs in the work of the German chemist Caspar Neumann, in English translation in 1759.[24] The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652,[25] before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.[26]
"Aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton that died and sedimented in large quantities under anoxic conditions millions of years ago began forming petroleum and natural gas as a result of anaerobic decomposition. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, became buried under further heavy layers of inorganic sediment. The resulting high temperature and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Despite these heat-driven transformations, the energy released in combustion is still photosynthetic in origin.[4]"
Not sure why you’re muddying the waters on something pretty well understood. No one claimed oil is made from “dead dinosaurs.
No one HERE claimed oil is made from dead dinosaurs. Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs.
As long as we are talking about fuel, "fossil fuel" is not at all confusing. If people start talking about fossilized animals and plants while they are also talking about fuel, the water turns muddy. If you were to be covered up with a lot of muddy water, the suspended solids would settle on your esteemed carcass and over eons would turn you into a very small glob of petroleum, depending how fat your are. Unfortunately, by the time your are petrol the species will have long since become extinct and the successor species will probably use photosynthesis.
The Oxford English Dictionary notes that in the phrase "fossil fuel" the adjective "fossil" means "[o]btained by digging; found buried in the earth", which dates to at least 1652,[25] before the English noun "fossil" came to refer primarily to long-dead organisms in the early 18th century.[26]
Reply to Mikie Yes, the propaganda, and willful ignorance and complacency, are all strong. If enough people get on the same page, then we will still face the issue that in many democratic nations there is little to choose between candidate parties, and in totalitarian nations, well...revolution will be required. It's not really looking good for a stable future, whatever happens.
Agreed. The stupidity, denial, and ignorance displayed on this thread alone is itself indicative of a wider problem.
Propaganda, misinformation, and human unwillingness to face reality may very well destroy the species — from climate change, yes, but also from things like nuclear proliferation.
But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope.
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.
Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
You really can’t see it, huh?
Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):
- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.
- We burn those plants.
- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.
That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
———
But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope.
:up: Optimism is the only attitude worth taking; pessimism brings about its own prophecies...and complacency is capitulation by default. Denial is the worst of all...
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Your picture of the carbon cycle is OK as far as it goes, but 3 things are missing:
a) A small minority of cows are grazed on grass alone. Most cows are fed hay or grass, but are "finished"(weight and fat are added) on grains. Grain requires quite a bit of added energy input in the form of fertilizer and fuel. Carbon dioxide is the by-product of raising corn, wheat, and soybeans for feed.
b) Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
c) The land on which feed for cattle is produced could produce those crops for humans--corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, etc. The ratio of grains to meat (pound for pound) is 6:1 -- it takes 6 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. Chicken is much more efficient, 1.5:1--1 1/2 lbs of feed for 1 pound of chicken. Pork is in-between beef and chicken -- 3:1.
I am not a vegetarian, btw. I like meat.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 10:48#8320030 likes
Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).
But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.
The next 2 paragraphs are counter-intuitive, so take time to think about them
With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced actually balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere.
The next paragraph is my summary of the situation:
With stable livestock numbers the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows remains at the same level. This is because the amount of methane added to the atmosphere each year equals the amount of methane removed from the atmosphere each year (by breaking down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water). So if livestock numbers stay the same then the methane produced by livestock does not cause additional global warming (the methane from cows is not increasing).
But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.
Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows.
I gave you 3 sources in total. The other 2 are NOT meat companies
This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
You mean your point that cows don’t add any emissions because of the “biogenic cycle”? I’ve addressed this now 3 times. I even reposted it. You’ve ignored it. Not a surprise, given that it shows how ludicrous your position is, but still stands.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 11:34#8320160 likes
Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.
The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere and this carbon accumulates because it stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Fossil fuel carbon is not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 11:36#8320170 likes
I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?
This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant.
Emissions from livestock production are expected to continue rising as the global population nears 10 billion by midcentury and diets shift to incorporate more meat. (Consumption of meat from ruminant animals like cattle is expected to increase by about 90% by 2050.) If current trends for food demand and production continue, emissions from the food system alone would likely push global warming beyond 1.5° C, even if all non-food system emissions were immediately eliminated. Consumption of dairy and meat, particularly from cattle, is expected to account for over half of future warming associated with the food system, with emissions from meat production alone contributing 0.2–0.44°C of warming by the end of the century.
Here again it’s worth pausing in awe of an individual’s capacity to believe they know something that scientists, who have dedicated their entire lives to studying a topic, don’t know— or have apparently overlooked. Like, for example, maybe if we keep repeating “biogenic carbon cycle” a thousand times, we won’t have to worry about meat production anymore!
Emissions are increasing from livestock? “Biogenic carbon cycle.” Bam. Problem solved. Scientists worried for nothing.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 11:51#8320220 likes
What don't you like about these 2 sources?
— Agree to Disagree
That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant.
The first source from The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This webpage address actually has "biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle" in the address.
You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock
The second source from CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
This webpage has a section on methane
It does not address the very real problem of emissions from livestock, which is on the order of roughly 15%.
None of your sources once addresses land change, and make the ludicrous assumption that “if” we keep the numbers the same, eventually things would stabilize. Yeah, no shit. Since that isn’t close to reality, why you choose to harp on it is pretty telling.
How amazing it must be pretending that there’s no problem, and further pretending you know why — because you googled “biogenic carbon cycle.” Truly embarrassing. But keep trying…all of these climate denial tropes are a good demonstration of how stupid that position is.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 12:46#8320290 likes
... and make the ludicrous assumption that “if” we keep the numbers the same, eventually things would stabilize. Yeah, no shit. Since that isn’t close to reality, why you choose to harp on it is pretty telling.
You don't seem to realize that if the number of cows has already been approximately constant for the last 12 years then the situation is already stabilized. The current number of cows won't cause any additional global warming. The total methane level from cows is already constant in the atmosphere.
In short, livestock production appears to contribute about 11%–17% of global greenhouse gas emissions, when using the most recent GWP-100 values, though there remains great uncertainty in much of the underlying data such as methane emissions from enteric fermentation, CO2 emissions from grazing land, or land-use change caused by animal agriculture.
1. How does beef production cause greenhouse gas emissions?
The short answer: Through the agricultural production process and through land-use change.
The longer explanation: Cows and other ruminant animals (like goats and sheep) emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as they digest grasses and plants. This process is called “enteric fermentation,” and it’s the origin of cows’ burps. Methane is also emitted from manure. Additionally, nitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas, is emitted from ruminant wastes on pastures and chemical fertilizers used on crops produced for cattle feed.
More indirectly but also importantly, rising beef production requires increasing quantities of land. New pastureland is often created by cutting down trees, which releases carbon dioxide stored in forests.
In 2017, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that total annual emissions from beef production, including agricultural production emissions plus land-use change, were about 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010. That means emissions from beef production in 2010 were roughly on par with those of India, and about 7% of total global greenhouse gas emissions that year. Because FAO only modestly accounted for land-use-change emissions, this is a conservative estimate.
Global demand for beef and other ruminant meats continues to grow, rising by 25% between 2000 and 2019. During the first two decades of this century, pastureland expansion was the leading direct driver of deforestation. Continued demand growth will put pressure on forests, biodiversity and the climate. Even after accounting for improvements in beef production efficiency, pastureland could expand by an estimated 400 million hectares, an area of land larger than the size of India, between 2010 and 2050. The resulting deforestation could increase global emissions enough to put the global goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5-2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F) out of reach.
At COP26, global leaders pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30% and end deforestation by 2030. Addressing beef-related emissions could help countries meet both pledges.
3. Why are some people saying beef production is only a small contributor to emissions?
The short answer: Such estimates commonly leave out land-use impacts, such as cutting down forests to establish new pastureland.
The longer explanation: There are a lot of statistics out there that account for emissions from beef production, but not from associated land-use change. For example, here are three common U.S. estimates:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated total U.S. agricultural emissions in 2019 at only 10% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2019 study in Agricultural Systems estimated emissions from beef production at only 3% of total U.S. emissions.
A 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences estimated that removing all animals from U.S. agriculture would reduce U.S. emissions by only 3%.
While all of these estimates account for emissions from U.S. agricultural production, they leave out a crucial element: emissions associated with devoting land to agriculture. An acre of land devoted to food production is often an acre that could store far more carbon if allowed to grow forest or its native vegetation. And when considering the emissions associated with domestic beef production, estimates must look beyond national borders, especially since global beef demand is on the rise.
Because food is a global commodity, what is consumed in one country can drive land use impacts and emissions in another. An increase in U.S. beef consumption, for example, can result in deforestation to make way for pastureland in Latin America. Conversely, a decrease in U.S. beef consumption can avoid deforestation and land-use-change emissions abroad. As another example, U.S. beef exports to China have been growing rapidly since 2020.
When the land-use effects of beef production are accounted for, the GHG impacts associated with the average American-style diet actually comes close to per capita U.S. energy-related emissions. A related analysis found that the average European’s diet-related emissions, when accounting for land-use impacts, are similar to the per capita emissions typically assigned to each European’s consumption of all goods and services, including energy.
I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?
This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
It appears that you have misinterpreted this source. The full impact of this article is that reducing methane is the best way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.
As the wildfires in Canada continue to shroud much of the midwest in a thick haze of smoke, New Yorkers are preparing yet again for the smoke to make its way further east.
Based on data from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, there are 480 active fires in Canada: 252 are out of control, 77 are being held in place, and 151 are under control.
Data also shows that Canada has experienced 11,598 fires during the first seven months of this year alone. This is a 705% increase compared to fires detected over the same period of the previous six years. Canada is currently battling the country’s worst wildfire season on record, with more than 10 million ha of land burned, which is said to increase in the coming weeks.
Lots of :fire: this year. Will this become a new norm of sorts?
the situation is already stabilized. The current number of cows won't cause any additional global warming. The total methane level from cows is already constant in the atmosphere.
There isn't a shred of logic in these statements. Even if it were true that output was stabile, that doesn't imply that the situation to which the output is a contributing factor is stabile. And the fact that the current number of cows won't cause "any additional" global warming just means that the ongoing amount of their ecological impact isn't decreasing. Which is the point.
There isn't a shred of logic in these statements. Even if it were true that output was stabile, that doesn't imply that the situation to which the output is a contributing factor is stabile. And the fact that the current number of cows won't cause "any additional" global warming just means that the ongoing amount of their ecological impact isn't decreasing. Which is the point.
He's just saying that cattle farming is net-zero wrt greenhouse gas emissions. That's what we want all human operations to be. It's ok to produce greenhouse gases as long as your emissions are being scrubbed somehow.
Whether it's really the case that cattle farming is net-zero, I have no idea.
Reply to frank Even if that were true, there is a certain "environmental load" to maintaining any greenhouse-gas involved process. If scale of cattle-farming were reduced, the "environmental load" would also be reduced. Which is part of the goal, I think.
Even if that were true, there is a certain "environmental load" to maintaining any greenhouse-gas involved process. If scale of cattle-farming were reduced, the "environmental load" would also be reduced. Which is part of the goal, I think.
Have you ever been through West Virginia and seen the huge bands of coal in the cliffs beside the highway? Awesome.
No, but that would be highly interesting.
I was at Cumberland Falls in Kentucky a few years ago and picked up some pieces of coal that had washed down from up stream. The pieces were rounded and smoothed; quite nice. I've never thought of coal as a rock, either. When I was a child, we heated the house with a coal space heater. Usually the coal was briquettes, but sometimes it was chunk coal, some of the chunks being the size of a small watermelon or cantaloupe.
I suppose, upon your first naive encounter with unprocessed coal one could think of it as a rock. It is rock-like in hardness and weight, but it has very unrocklike features. For instance, if you apply a small torch flame to the surface of unprocessed coal, little jets of gas will ignite; if you apply more heat, the surface will chip off. Apply enough heat and it burns. Rocks don't do that.
The residue of burnt coal is more clearly a mineral. Clinkers formed in the bottom of the stove. They were fairly hard and brittle -- but not a solid mass -- lots of irregular shapes and holes. Coal ash is reddish grey-brown and relatively light in weight. The ash will become toxic when water leaches out the various chemicals native to coal and created by combustion.
Reply to frank Any process that involves methane, for example, involves the transport of that methane throughout a cycle, portions of which are stored for durations in the environment. Carbon is stored and flows in such a cycle. And nitrogen. Viewing cattle as an abstract point of methane data is unrealistic. Short-term, a cow is a very-high-net methane producer. Reduce the number of cows and you must reduce the net-methane load in the environment.
Reply to Agree to Disagree Meat produced through rotating grassland grazing (without a finishing program of grain feed) is quite possibly sustainable. I generally buy grass-fed ground beef. What isn't sustainable and good for the earth are very high levels of beef production.
Most of the beef sold is NOT grass-fed -- it's grass for-a-while then grain-finished. I discussed the increased CO2 load from grain production above.
True enough, methane is much shorter-lived than CO2--12 years, +/- as you said. The problem is that we are loading the atmosphere with more and more methane -- much of it from natural gas and oil production. The increased load of methane is the problem -- not that it takes a long time to break down, like CO2. Belching cattle are one source. There are a lot of cattle on the planet, about a billion.
There are also about a billion automobiles in the world, which produce various noxious chemicals and which we can't eat.
Plants do take up CO2, of course. Unfortunately, we are reducing the planets best carbon sinks -- rain forests. Grass lands can absorb CO2 also, as can crop land. Both grazing and crop production can be managed to maximize CO2 uptake. This requires minimum tillage, and rotating the grazers so that they don't "clear cut" the pasturage. This method of meat production takes more labor and attention than the other method.
We should be planting more trees, and restoring crop and grazing land so that more CO2 could be captured and sequestered in soil.
The information on Good Meats isn't wrong, but quantity matters when it comes to CO2 and methane,
Any process that involves methane, for example, involves the transport of that methane throughout a cycle, portions of which are stored for durations in the environment. Carbon is stored and flows in such a cycle. And nitrogen. Viewing cattle as an abstract point of methane data is unrealistic. Short-term, a cow is a very-high-net methane producer. Reduce the number of cows and you must reduce the net-methane load in the environment.
But it's the nature of a cycle that as methane is emitted today, the components of yesterday's emissions are simultaneously being taken up by plants. This is the argument, anyway.
I used to do aquariums, so I'm somewhat tuned into cycling and bio load on a closed system. I presently have an immortal fish with whom I have a troubled relationship. I want her to die so I can close down my last aquarium, but she's now about 4 times the age her species is supposed to live. I think of letting the bio load rise until the pH is incompatible with life, but I can't do it!
But it's the nature of a cycle that as methane is emitted today, the components of yesterday's emissions are simultaneously being taken up by plants. This is the argument, anyway.
Right. And if all methane-producing elements in the environment were somehow eliminated, the methane levels would drop. Whether, in the grand scheme of things, a cow is "methane-neutral" is a pretty hard to say. But biologically (vs systemically) speaking, cows are "methane generators". If all cattle were gone, methane levels would decrease.
8 billion+ people, a billion cattle, a billion cars, a petroleum-dependent world economy, cement production (cooking limestone to make lime), metal production, airlines, a mindless garbage problem -- it is ALL the problem.
The "cure" may be as unpalatable as the "disease".
Agree to Disagree is not being substantially more recalcitrant than a billion car owners that do not want to give up their private vehicles, or give up good roads to drive on, or a few billion carnivores who do not want to replace meat with beans and greens.
Our ways of living are unsustainable, and we are in trouble and heading for worse. Sure, some individuals don't see the problem, but entire governments can't seem to actually do very much either--never mind the corporate sector. Either very few or no G20 governments have managed to act effectively on carbon dioxide/methane gas reduction. Sure, spotty progress is being made here and there, but critical decades have passed where nothing got done.
How did you start the heater? Did you use lighter fluid?
No, we used a small wood fire to get the coal going. During the winter, the fire was maintained by the regular addition of more coal (done by hand). At night, the coal would burn down and almost nothing left in the morning, so around 6:00 more coal had to be added.
A lot of people heated with coal. Until the late 60s the only alternative in the upper midwest was oil. Unless they were buying gravel coal (ground up to the size of gravel that could be loaded into the furnace by an auger) they had to add the coal with a shovel or a bucket. You opened the stove's door and threw the coal in.
The other source of heat for the house was a large cast iron wood burning cooking stove that had been converted to oil--kerosene. The stove was supplied from a 5 gallon tank that had to be refilled once a day from a bigger tank in the barn. Quite a few times a day, the stove's tank would make a "glug-glug-glug" sound as air filled the emptying space in the tank. It was especially noticeable in the night's quiet. This stove also was on all winter. (Our house was an old, uninsulated leaky frame building).
unenlightenedAugust 20, 2023 at 18:57#8321130 likes
With stable livestock numbers the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows remains at the same level. This is because the amount of methane added to the atmosphere each year equals the amount of methane removed from the atmosphere each year (by breaking down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water).
This is true. But what is not mentioned is that the more cows there are, the higher the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere is. And the amount that it increases as we increase meat production has to be added to other sources of methane from leaky pipes, oil wells, melting permafrost, etc.
So it's not "the answer" because no one thing is the answer, but eating less red meat in particular is a very good way to buy more time to take other measures if enough people start doing it. In the UK, this is happening to the extent that vegetarian and vegan options have become ubiquitous in supermarkets, restaurants and fast food outlets. And it helps a bit. It also helps to reduce the pressure on the rainforest of the Amazon basin, for example, which is being cut down and burned to make room for more cattle and more soya and maize cattle feed. I'm not an expert on the Australian ecosystem, but the introduction of non-native species has not been without problems.
[quote=WWF]No other rural industry impacts more of Australia than our beef industry. More than 63,000 farming businesses are producing beef from 43% of the country's landmass. We are also the world's second largest beef exporter, which injects an estimated $8.4 billion into the Australian economy.
More than any other livestock industry, the beef industry relies on healthy natural ecosystems. Fodder and clean water are essential. But cattle production is costly to the environment. Clearing native vegetation for pasture has sacrificed wildlife habitat, and poor grazing practices have seen excess sediments enter waterways and damage places like the . Cattle are also significant greenhouse gas producers, which contributes to climate change.[/quote]
https://wwf.org.au/what-we-do/food/beef/#
If all cattle were gone, methane levels would decrease.
If cattle farming were truly net-zero, this wouldn't be true. As you say, we don't know if it is. A pretty complex analysis would have to be brought to bear.
This is true. But what is not mentioned is that the more cows there are, the higher the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere is
This is exactly what I have been describing. Livestock population levels correlate with a certain systemic level of methane.
The fact of the matter is, we should be making whatever reductions even remotely make sense and actively searching for new possibilities to do so. We have been quite content to radically disturb the biosphere haphazardly in aid of profit, we should be courageous enough to do so systematically in aid of human well being.
If cattle farming were truly net-zero, this wouldn't be true.
— frank
Yes, it would be true. This is why:
This is true. But what is not mentioned is that the more cows there are, the higher the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere is
— unenlightened
I'm not seeing this. Let's say we start from today. There's an average of 1.7 ppm of methane in the atmosphere. This average covers seasonal variation. Now we'll add a cattle farm in Mexico, and it's truly net zero, which means that after 12 years, its output is entirely absorbed by its input.
he fact of the matter is, we should be making whatever reductions even remotely make sense and actively searching for new possibilities to do so. We have been quite content to radically disturb the biosphere haphazardly in aid of profit, we should be courageous enough to do so systematically in aid of human well being.
And I repeated this same sentiment earlier in the thread. The thing is, it really doesn't relate to the argument Agree-to-Disagree made. My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming.
I'm not seeing this. Let's say we start from today. There's an average of 1.7 ppm of methane in the atmosphere. This average covers seasonal variation. Now we'll add a cattle farm in Mexico, and it's truly net zero, which means that after 12 years, its output is entirely absorbed by its input.
You are not grasping that this is a system and there is a definable quantity of methane within the entire system that correlates with a specific population level of cattle. Ergo any decrease in the population of the cattle is simultaneously a decrease in the associated methane level. It is irrelevant over what period of time the cattle achieve a net-zero methane balance.
unenlightenedAugust 20, 2023 at 21:13#8321440 likes
It can be net zero in terms of carbon, but if you double the number of animals, you double the methane released. in 12 years time all the first year's methane will have degraded through lightening and radiation aided oxidation, but meanwhile the overall amount of methane of bovine origin will have doubled and that will be the new 'stable amount' in the atmosphere.
But google is your friend.
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas contributor to climate change following carbon dioxide. On a 100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.
You are not grasping that this is a system and there is a definable quantity of methane within the entire system that correlates with a specific population level of cattle. Ergo any decrease in the population of the cattle is simultaneously a decrease in the associated methane level. It is irrelevant over what period of time the cattle achieve a net-zero methane balance.
The cows put out 1 ppm of methane. The plants take up 1 ppm of methane. That's what net-zero means.
I think you're just basically asserting that it isn't possible for a cattle farm to be net-zero.
Now we'll add a cattle farm in Mexico, and it's truly net zero, which means that after 12 years, its output is entirely absorbed by its input.
What is the proposal for how atmospheric methane is absorbed by the farm? As I understand it, plants don't make use of atmospheric methane as they make use of atmospheric CO2. (Although some species of bacteria metabolize methane.)
The cows put out 1 ppm of methane. The plants take up 1 ppm of methane. That's what net-zero means.
Yes, and it also means that there is always a correlative amount of methane hanging about in the system. It doesn't just flow from the butt of the cow into the tissues of the plant.
What is the proposal for how atmospheric methane is absorbed by the farm? As I understand it, plants don't make use of atmospheric methane as they make use of atmospheric CO2. (Although some species of bacteria metabolize methane.)
The cows put out 1 ppm of methane. The plants take up 1 ppm of methane. That's what net-zero means.
— frank
Yes, and it also means that there is always a correlative amount of methane hanging about in the system. It doesn't just flow from the mouth of the cow into the tissues of the plant.
Yes. The emissions won't be absorbed for about 12 years, but cattle farms don't last forever. After Juan retires and closes down the farm the plants still absorb the methane for about 12 years. In the end, if the farm was truly net zero, it did not contribute to global warming.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 23:35#8322160 likes
If you don't think we can do anything about climate change, it doesn't really matter if cattle farming is net-zero, does it?
The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. Economies and counties and people are being damaged financially. Countries that are damaged financially have less money to fight fossil fuels, and are wasting resources that could be used to fight fossil fuels.
I may have given people the impression that I thought that there is nothing that we can do about global warming. I think that this is probably true short-term. Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as the Titanic slowly sinks.
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. If we concentrate on the right solutions. Even then, it will be difficult and take a long time. I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems.
The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. Economies and counties and people are being damaged financially. Countries that are damaged financially have less money to fight fossil fuels, and are wasting resources that could be used to fight fossil fuels.
But let's say that the public begins to favor a lower cholesterol diet and they want to move away from monoculture land use with all the pesticides and fertilizers that go with that. The people in the beef and dairy industries could adapt to the changing scene just like all the people who had to adapt to the rise of computers and the end of American steel. They could find jobs doing something else, like making tofu.
I guess where I land on the issue is that I think the use of coal and natural gas needs to be the main issue. Doing something about cows will not solve the problem. Doing something about coal, considering the massive amount of coal we have left to burn, would be a giant step toward solving the problem. Whatever social technology we develop to make that change will help us change whatever else needs adjusting.
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. We all agree on what the main problem is. Our common ground is huge compared to the rest. How the hell to we end up at each other's throats over the tiny bit we disagree on?
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. If we concentrate on the right solutions. Even then, it will be difficult and take a long time. I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems.
:up:
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 20, 2023 at 23:56#8322290 likes
Reply to frank
I think that you and I agree on about 99% of what we are talking about. But that doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so I am going to concentrate on the 1% where we disagree. Also, I don't like tofu. :grin:
I think that you and I agree on about 99% of what we are talking about. But that doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so I am going to concentrate on the 1% where we disagree. Also, I don't like tofu. :grin:
Yea. That's probably how it works. Tofu is especially good in Thai food. :grin:
I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems.
You will be happy to discover that is precisely the policy of most countries. However, if the change doesn't happen fast enough then global heating may scuttle all of our plans.
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term.
By my definition of long term (a century, say) we don't have a long term. We have a short term which 30 years ago was maybe 40 years into the future. We've pissed away the last 30 years, and now have about 10 years left.
Do we all drop dead in 10 years? No. People are already dropping dead from global heating, In 10 years, we may not have any options left which we can apply to the problem. In other words, the planet will continue to get hotter as we struggle to meet the standards for 1.5ºC of global warming, which goal will have been left in the dust.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 21, 2023 at 00:08#8322360 likes
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me.
— frank
Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows!
In the country where I live beef, lamb, and dairy are very important industries. The government and the farmers have been arguing for at least 6 years about whether agriculture should be brought into our country's Emissions Trading Scheme (and how it should be brought in). The government and the farmers keep making deals and then breaking them.
There is an election very soon, and this has become an election issue.
They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years.
That’s at least 6 canards. Climate denial bingo.
Yes, they (scientists) have been warning about global warming for decades. And what do we see? This summer half of Canada is on fire, smoke plumes made their way all over the US, heat records broken all over, a tropical storm heading to California, deadly heat waves and fires in Europe, India, China — Maui on fire, and the hottest July on record.
But yeah, it’s exactly like “the boy who cried wolf.”
How willfully ignorant does one have to be to deny the evidence all around them? It’s the effect of propaganda…or pure stupidity.
True, but I have more sympathy for those who have been deliberately and systematically brainwashed. Our latest foil is a bit of both, but generally an average climate denier. Nothing special.
The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason.
In a previous post, @Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.
My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming.
But his own source proves that it does contribute.
Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive.
Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive.
Reply to Agree to Disagree 40 years of warning about the next 10 years. Right. Too bad we weren't paying attention.
In this world, very little ever happens quickly. Long lead times are needed to effect major changes in production, transportation, construction, energy generation, medicine, and so forth. Rule of thumb: it takes 40 years to introduce and build out new technology. Electric cars are a good example: Tesla made its first car in 2008. 15 years after the first car, Tesla is now building out a nationwide charging system. Various companies and agencies are working on this area. Meanwhile, non-carbon-fueled electricity generation is still far from dominant. It's price competitive, but it still amounts to only about 20% of the total electricity production in the US.
We haven't run into global shortages of lithium and cobalt for batteries yet; the same goes for neodymium, samarium, terbium. dysprosium, lanthanum and cerium which are used in various parts of electric motors -- then there is copper. Lots of copper. The metals are produced by fairly dirty extraction and refining, It's isn't that they are so rare. So, we don't have enough of all this stuff on hand to suddenly field 30 million electric autos, even if that was. good idea. Again, 40 years.
Various technologies (like hydrogen) would be far less polluting than even natural gas, but we are a long ways from having the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use enough H to make a difference, Again, think 40 years.
Ten years is a good stretch of time to talk about. 100 years is way too long to think about meaningfully, and 1 year is way too short.
a previous post, Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2.
I don't see where it says that. This is the entire article:
"The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle
February 19, 2020
By Samantha Werth
"Cattle are often thought to contribute to climate change because they belch methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. While this is true, cattle do belch methane, it is actually part of an important natural cycle, known as the biogenic carbon cycle.
"Photosynthesis and carbon
The biogenic carbon cycle centers on the ability of plants to absorb and sequester carbon. Plants have the unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and deposit that carbon into plant leaves, roots, and stems while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. This process is known as photosynthesis and it is central to the biogenic carbon cycle.
"When plants perform photosynthesis, carbon is primarily converted to cellulose, a form of carbohydrate that is one of the main building blocks for growing plants. Cellulose happens to be the most abundant organic compound in the world, present in all grasses, shrubs, crops, and trees. Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?
"Cattle upcycle cellulose… and carbon!
Cattle are made to digest cellulose. They are able to consume grasses and other plants that are high in cellulose and, through enteric fermentation, digest the carbon that is stored in cellulose. Cattle can use that carbon, upcycling the cellulose, for growth, milk production, and other metabolic processes.
"As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat the plants and the cycle begins once again. In essence, the methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. Rather it is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle.
"Fossil Fuels Are Not Part of the Biogenic Carbon Cycle
The biogenic carbon cycle is a relatively fast cycle. That is, carbon cycles between plants and the atmosphere in a short period of time, usually in the range of a few years to a few decades. In the case of cattle, this cycle is about ten years. By comparison, carbon exchange between the atmosphere and geological reserves (such as deep soils, the deeper ocean, and rocks) is on the span of millennia, 1000 or more years. Hence, why the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. geological reserves) has a much greater impact on our climate than the biogenic carbon cycle.
"It takes 1000 years for CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels to be redeposited back into geological reserves. That is tenfold (10x) the amount of time it takes methane belched by cattle to be redeposited back into plant matter. To put this in perspective, the CO2 released from driving your car to work today will remain in the atmosphere, having a warming effect on our climate, longer than the lifetimes of you, your children, or even your grandchildren. Thus, the burning of fossil fuels has a longstanding impact on our climate, one that is much more significant than the belching of methane from cattle, which is part of the short-term biogenic carbon cycle."
It looks like it's saying that cattle farming is not a significant contributor. What am I missing?
Various technologies (like hydrogen) would be far less polluting than even natural gas, but we are a long ways from having the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use enough H to make a difference, Again, think 40 years.
I don't think hydrogen is a feasible technology though. It depends on overcapacity and over investing in energy generators doesn't make economic sense and building a hydrolysis plant that only runs during very windy or very sunny days (in NL) means it will be only a few days a year, doesn't make any sense either.
I'm not a hydrogen booster. Namibia is planning a hydrogen production facility driven by wind and solar. If steel and lime can be made with electricity, then use that instead of making a fuel with electricity first. I don't see H being a major form of energy.
I used hydrogen as an example -- if we were going to make a lot of hydrogen for all sorts of purposes, it would probably take 40 years (+/-) to get production, transportation, and consumption facilities built.
I'm not a hydrogen booster. Namibia is planning a hydrogen production facility driven by wind and solar. If steel and lime can be made with electricity, then use that instead of making a fuel with electricity first. I don't see H being a major form of energy.
Yes, the white hydrogen seems very feasible as part of a larger energy mixture. The green hydrogen they're pursuing in the Netherlands doesn't look too good to me. I was working at the Ministry of Finance when they were discussing it and challenged subsidising it. Over the years, I've learned a lot from my dad who was engineer and manager at Shell his entire career. It fell on deaf ears (because what would a lawyer know about economics and chemistry, right?) but I see much of the worries I had voiced again in the media nowadays but the ship seems to have already sailed.
I would expect that the developments of batteries still have lots of potential that make it inefficient to store potential in hydrogen as well. There's sand batteries in Finland and Toyota claiming a recent breakthrough in solid state batteries halving costs, that are just two recent examples I've heard of that sound promising.
Of course, there might be an industrial need for H2 to make ammonia and fertiliser if we stop making H2 from CH4 but I'm not sure we would want to have a large hydrolysis plant compete with our regular need for energy, basically increasing prices. Because I'm pretty certain once the plant is there and they "discover" it's not viable to only run it when there's overcapacity that the government will allow them to buy electricity in the market even when there's undercapacity, causing prices to explode for regular people.
unenlightenedAugust 21, 2023 at 09:11#8323360 likes
Here is a slightly more reliable source than the meat industry, with links to scientific papers and consideration of all the various routes of entry and exit of methane to and from the atmosphere, in case anyone is actually interested in anything other than their own opinion.
Worldwide emissions of methane have hit the “highest levels on record”, according to an international team of scientists.
The finding comes from the latest update to the Global Methane Budget, an international collaboration that estimates sources and sinks of methane around the world.
Their estimates for 2017 – the most recent year for which a full budget has been produced – show that annual global emissions hit almost 600m tonnes. That is around 9% higher than the 2000-06 average.
By the end of 2019, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere reached around 1875 parts per billion (ppb), the researchers say – more than two-and-a-half times pre-industrial levels.
Breaking down the different sources, the budget shows that rising emissions from “both the agriculture and waste sector and the fossil fuel sector are likely the dominant cause of this global increase”. This highlights the “need for stronger mitigation in both areas”, the researchers say.
The work also shows “no evidence to date for increasing methane release from the Arctic”. This “crucial” finding means “we are not yet being confounded by substantial feedbacks” that could make meeting the 1.5C and 2C warming limits even harder, another scientist tells Carbon Brief.
Apologies if you haven't had your breakfast yet, but not only do the burps consist of methane, but a whole lot more is produced by the anaerobic breakdown of the waste products, typically in slurry ponds.
In North America and Western Europe around 40% of livestock manure is handled in liquid form [1]. Liquid manure (slurry) represents a mainly anaerobic environment and is a significant source of atmospheric methane (CH4), which is the second-largest anthropogenic source of radiative forcing next to carbon dioxide (CO2) [2]. Volumes of liquid manure increase in many parts of the world due to intensification of livestock production [3], and thus it becomes increasingly important to determine effects of manure treatment and management on emissions of CH4.
This is an entirely tractable problem, that requires mere money to be thrown at it. Cover the slurry, and collect the gas for domestic use. Pre-industrial farming would use straw bedding that mixed with the effluent and would be mainly aerobically composted in a heap and then spread as fertiliser on the arable fields. And of course the peasants ate little meat, so a win win.
This is an entirely tractable problem, that requires mere money to be thrown at it. Cover the slurry, and collect the gas for domestic use. Pre-industrial farming would use straw bedding that mixed with the effluent and would be mainly aerobically composted in a heap and then spread as fertiliser on the arable fields. And of course the peasants ate little meat, so a win win.
Steps need to be taken toward this happening.
unenlightenedAugust 21, 2023 at 10:41#8323570 likes
Yes, 2 steps, to be precise. A subsidy on the equipment required to collect the gas, and a tax on allowing its release. Bish bash bosh. Farmers cannot run and hide.
unenlightenedAugust 21, 2023 at 10:57#8323620 likes
The above is a very simple example of how to insert environmental costs into an economy that does not account for them, and thereby incentivise the minimising of environmental damage and maximising of restoration.
The same can be done on a global scale by building a carbon tax system into world trade agreements. Since we can get detailed emission data from satellites, the rules can be readily enforced and countries trying to cheat can be penalised with export duties. If there were a will, it is not difficult to do. But cheating is profiteering at the expense of the planet, and we are letting the cheats prosper because they fill the ranks of all governments and all political parties able to seriously contend for government.
Reply to EricH
I looked at the video. At the portion you marked, the guy is suggesting that if we limit methane emissions from cattle (apparently California has already dropped it by 25%), then we can reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero.
If you have nothing left to add, let the adults talk.
I look forward to your next climate denial trope, as myself and several others repeat the “propaganda” from…checking notes… 99% of the climate scientists.
For those playing the bingo:
- climate science is propaganda
- scientists have “cried wolf” for decades
- scientists were warning about a coming “ice age” in the 70s, so…you know, why take them seriously now?
- there’s nothing that can be done about climate change. Name a solution and I’ll shoot it down with cheap skepticism.
- livestock aren’t a problem because…” biogenic carbon cycle.”
- scientists have “hidden” data on temperatures
Etc.
But I’m not a denier.
unenlightenedAugust 21, 2023 at 12:25#8323770 likes
I looked at the video. At the portion you marked, the guy is suggesting that if we limit methane emissions from cattle (apparently California has already dropped it by 25%), then we can reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative.
Every plant (bar a very few and rare parasitic ones) is carbon negative. Every animal and fungus, by contrast, is carbon positive. If a cattle farm is not net zero or negative, it is depleting the soil, or the soil of the farm from which it sources its feed. A cattle farm can be turned carbon negative most easily by killing the cattle and planting trees. Fruit trees, if you also want to feed some naked apes. But we like dairy and beef. Ok, then let's have some dairy and beef, but let's not pretend that it will help to stop climate change. That's ahem, bullshit! Try not to consume bullshit.
Every farm needs to be substantially carbon negative simply to offset the carbon positive human life that it exists to support.
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero.
Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this). So we need to be cautious.
Just to sum up, CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02 (estimates vary between 20 times to 80 times depending on how it's calculated.) After 12 years, CH4 turns into C02. Even tho the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, it has an outsized contribution to total global warming (at least 14%) during those 12 years.
After 12 years there is no difference to the climate whether these CO2 molecules came from tailpipe emissions or from cow burps. However as an accounting issue we can separate that out since the plants that feed the cattle are re-absorbing CO2. So the phrase "net zero" is not referring to the contribution to global warming - rather "net zero" is referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that.
What I have not been able to ascertain in my limited free time here is whether the CO2 emitted by 1.5 billion cattle (since they do breath in O2 and emit CO2) is factored into these calculations - but I assume that this is factored into these calculations as well.
So reducing CH4 emissions from cattle raising is a very good thing from 2 perspectives - firstly by sequestering (or reducing CH4 emission) there will be fewer CO2 molecules floating around in 12 years - and secondly by reducing the amount of nasty CH4 floating around during those 12 years we can slow global warming by some measurable amount.
Of course reducing the production of cattle would have an even greater impact.
Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this
I assumed the one from UC Davis was produced through a grant from some beef collective. It just has that written all over it.
Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that.
I agree. Through this discussion, people have been approaching the issue as if it can be answered by applying armchair principles. I doubt that. If it takes a super computer to run a simplified model of the climate, why would somebody think they can spitball the effect of cows? C'mon!
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 00:24#8325680 likes
Every plant (bar a very few and rare parasitic ones) is carbon negative. Every animal and fungus, by contrast, is carbon positive.
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game.
Note that the claim that I just made does not include fossil fuels used to produce plants and animals. It also doesn't include things like nitrogen fertilizers. Fossil fuels and nitrogen fertilizers are not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.
But we like dairy and beef. Ok, then let's have some dairy and beef, but let's not pretend that it will help to stop climate change. That's ahem, bullshit! Try not to consume bullshit.
However cow shit IS a part of the biogenic carbon cycle. And so is bullshit. :grin:
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 00:52#8325760 likes
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game.
It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming.
If you had actually read the article and watched the video from U Cal that you yourself posted (which BTW is financed by the cattle industry), it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing
unenlightenedAugust 22, 2023 at 10:04#8326790 likes
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game.
Indeed. A desert is carbon neutral - the environment is balanced. But for a farm, that balance has to extend beyond the farm to the community of humans it feeds. Therefore the farm itself, excluding its dependent customers, has to be carbon negative. Humans in cities are part of the biogenic cycle too, but they course do not feature in the calculations of the livestock industry.
Note that the claim that I just made does not include fossil fuels used to produce plants and animals. It also doesn't include things like nitrogen fertilizers. Fossil fuels and nitrogen fertilizers are not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.
Indeed. You don't actually have to teach anyone here the basic science. It is indeed the burning of stored carbon that is the maincause of the problem, and that includes not only the obvious fossil fuels, but notably the limestone and chalk used to make concrete and to neutralise acidity in the soil of farms.
And as you imply, intensive farming is problematic. In order for a farm to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, it needs to be carbon negative after the consumption of all its edible produce. It needs to be storing carbon in the soil, or else producing non-consumable wood products or the like.
Farming practice needs to move in two directions at once. Frstly towards a true hydroponic factory farm, of multi-layered artificially lit growth powered by electricity. A sterile controlled environment to maximise the production of food; and similar bacterial and fungal production units. Secondly, to a lower intensity farming of the land that prioritises environmental concerns for biodiversity, resilience, and carbon capture over maximising human food production. In either direction, there is going to be less meat.
Indeed. A desert is carbon neutral - the environment is balanced. But for a farm, that balance has to extend beyond the farm to the community of humans it feeds. Therefore the farm itself, excluding its dependent customers, has to be carbon negative. Humans in cities are part of the biogenic cycle too, but they course do not feature in the calculations of the livestock industry.
Yes, all humans everywhere (not just cities) are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Humans also use non-biogenic carbon (e.g. from fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas).
Consider a spherical cow (or a spherical human). Every carbon atom that comes out of the cow must have at some point gone into the cow. The cow does not create carbon atoms or destroy carbon atoms. All that the cow does is change the form of the carbon atoms (e.g. from cellulose to milk, muscle tissue, bones, dung, CO2, methane, etc).
Some of the carbon atoms that come out of cows go into humans (we drink milk, eat meat, etc). So both cows and humans are part of the same biogenic carbon cycle. You can consider the biogenic carbon cycle of just cows, or the biogenic carbon cycle of just humans, or the combined biogenic carbon cycle of cows and humans together. Every biogenic carbon cycle must "balance", no matter which organisms (or combinations of organisms) is considered.
The same is true of a "farm". In the long run the farm captures carbon atoms from the atmosphere (or has them delivered in other forms e.g. grains to feed the cows). It outputs carbon atoms in a variety of ways (crops, fruit, vegetables, milk, meat (processed cows), etc). The farms biogenic carbon cycle must balance.
The farm can also act as a temporary store of carbon atoms as well. But in the end the farms biogenic carbon cycle must "balance".
This is why biogenic carbon is not an overall contributor to global warming.
The same is true of a "farm". In the long run the farm captures carbon atoms from the atmosphere (or has them delivered in other forms e.g. grains to feed the cows). It outputs carbon atoms in a variety of ways (crops, fruit, vegetables, milk, meat (processed cows), etc). The farms biogenic carbon cycle must balance.
The whole planet's carbon cycle has to balance because of gravity. :grin:
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 12:39#8327100 likes
The long run includes all the already captured carbon in the Earth, and human exploitation of it too as part of the biogenic cycle. the question is whether humans are going to be in it for the long run or are going to be a temporary disruption. the whole cycle of life on Earth can stop and still be in balance. So no worries eh?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 13:31#8327180 likes
The long run includes all the already captured carbon in the Earth, and human exploitation of it too as part of the biogenic cycle.
Fossil fuels were formed over a very long period of time from what used to be biogenic carbon. The process of turning biogenic carbon into fossil fuels removes it from the biogenic carbon cycle.
Because fossil fuels have been locked away from the "living" world for a very long time they are normally considered to be non-biogenic.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 13:57#8327210 likes
It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming.
This article explains the relationship between biogenic methane and global warming.
Because CO2 emissions last in the atmosphere for so long, they can continue to impact warming for centuries to come. New emissions are added on top of those that were previously emitted, leading to increases in the total atmospheric stock or concentration of CO2. As a result, when additional CO2 is emitted, additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
In contrast, methane emissions degrade in the atmosphere relatively quickly, after about 12 years, and do not act cumulatively over long periods of time. For a constant rate of methane emissions, one molecule in effect replaces a previously emitted molecule that has since broken down. This means that for a steady rate of methane release—as emitted by a constant number of dairy cows, for example—the amount of methane in the atmosphere (concentration) stays at the same level and does not increase. As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
You know how there was this American missionary who decided to bring the faith to a small island off the coast of Africa? It was an area where there were no police, there was no government, and no law. People told the missionary not to go because the natives would kill him.
He was like, "No, I have love in my heart, and these people will see into my soul and understand that I'm coming to help them. He was practically glowing with his bright pearlescent halo as he set out alone in a canoe to save some souls.
They killed him.
It's good to try to look at the world through other people's eyes, but if you find that you don't have the experiences necessary to do that, at least recognize that the basic trust necessary for human interaction is not built by beaming your righteous heart out at the world you want to save. Sometimes you have to notice what other people need in order to trust you. If you're too bound up in your ego to look outward, you may end up destroying any chance of trust (like by insisting that in your flesh and bones you believe the ends justify the means, that's a bowling ball into trust.)
Because fossil fuels have been locked away from the "living" world for a very long time they are normally considered to be non-biogenic.
Yeah arbitrary limits to your terms to allow your mantra to be true. One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death!
One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death!
As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
This contradicts virtually every other source I could locate with a 10 minute search - they all say the same thing - methane emissions (primarily from cattle production) are contribute roughly 14% of total global climate change.
But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all.
Even with this counter factual assumption it is still a good thing to reduce methane production - since per your source this is one of the most cost effective ways to slow down global warming. Yes?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit: Maybe we are misunderstanding these papers. I email'd Dr. Mitloehner from Clear Center at UC Davis. Let's see what he has to say
[i]Dear Dr. Mitloehner,
I am a lay person who follows climate science - I am hoping you can find the time to answer a question.
I can see from the published reports that CLEAR is doing some good work on reducing CH4 emissions from livestock management.
In this paper it states that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs. However this seems to contradict virtually every other source I can find which says that CH4 production from agriculture (primarily livestock raising for meat or milk) is responsible for roughly 14% of global warming.
I fully understand the biogenic carbon cycle, I get that livestock production is net neutral with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (apart from associated costs of transportation etc, etc).
However, the CH4 from 1.5 billion or so cattle is always in the atmosphere and this is well above the amount of CH4 that was in the atmosphere before we started mass production of livestock. So isn't that additional CH4 contributing to global warming (even if the concentration does not increase)?
Or put differently, would it be correct to state that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs above and beyond the contribution from the CH4. (My bold)
I am aware of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - so thank you for being patient with these amateur questions.[/i]
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 22:35#8328500 likes
Yeah arbitrary limits to your terms to allow your mantra to be true. One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries.
Can you see the difference between 12 years and 12 million years?
So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad?
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.
Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.
For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.
This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective).
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 22, 2023 at 23:49#8328630 likes
But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all.
I think that the problem here is the phrase "contributing to global warming at all". It should be "contributing any additional global warming".
Methane causes global warming:
- if you increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get more global warming
- if you decrease the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get less global warming
- if the amount of methane in the atmosphere stays constant then the amount of global warming from the methane stays constant (it doesn't make global warming any worse or better)
A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant. So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant.
I suspect that when I went back to university to do a 2nd degree you were probably still in nappies (or if you are American, still in diapers).
Seems kind of silly to think that matters much in this discussion, when you are constantly demonstrating that you are a pretender to scientific understanding. Does, "Hesperus is Phosphorus", help?
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.
Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.
How are you going to farm the cattle without clearing land or using land that is already cleared that could otherwise be planted with trees, ideally fruit or nut-bearing trees, or grow more efficient animals, such as chickens, or crops, and how will you transport the cattle to market without using fossil fuels?
So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant.
Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.
To make the math simple, let's say that the current amount of methane in the atmosphere is causing mean global temp to rise by 0.01 degrees C every 10 years. So in 30 years if the amount of methane stays the same it will have contributed 0.03 degrees C rise.
But maybe I'm totally getting this wrong and Dr. Mitloehner will have an obvious explanation for his assertions. I highly doubt he will answer but you never know.
Apart from that, do you agree that what UC Davis is doing to reduce methane production is a good thing? If nothing else this will slow the rate of global warming, yes?
A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant.
No it doesn’t.
The 2022 methane increase was 14.0 ppb, the fourth-largest annual increase recorded since NOAA's systematic measurements began in 1983, and follows record …
Emissions are going up. Cows and livestock contribute emissions. They contribute about 15% globally.
We need more sustainable agricultural and livestock production, which includes less production.
Seems kind of silly to think that matters much in this discussion, when you are constantly demonstrating that you are a pretender to scientific understanding.
Mikie tried to imply that I am not an adult. I simply corrected him.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 11:50#8329510 likes
Can you not see that reducing biogenic carbon has very different effects to reducing non-biogenic carbon?
A methane molecule is a methane molecule, and a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, whether it is biogenic or non-biogenic. The effect on global warming is the same no matter whether the carbon is biogenic or non-biogenic. But the effects on other things are very different
Reducing non-biogenic carbon does not require as many changes to things like the farming industry, and does not require people to change their diet (which they might not want to do). It doesn't affect the types of foods produced and the amounts of foods produced, compared to reducing biogenic carbon.
Reducing biogenic carbon is likely to meet more resistance. Fighting global warming is hard enough as it is. Why make it harder? Many people don't like tofu or meat substitutes, and many people are not willing to give up meat.
Do you want cooperation or resistance?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 11:58#8329520 likes
How are you going to farm the cattle without clearing land or using land that is already cleared that could otherwise be planted with trees, ideally fruit or nut-bearing trees, or grow more efficient animals, such as chickens, or crops, and how will you transport the cattle to market without using fossil fuels?
Fruits, nuts, chickens, and crops all require transport to market.
Clearing the land and transporting things mostly uses non-biogenic carbon at the moment. So these activities should be made as efficient as possible.
Reply to Agree to Disagree
One thing to consider is that not all beef and dairy production is the same. American production (and anywhere else that's been bullied by Americans) is not particularly efficient. A lot of pesticide and petroleum based fertilizer has been used. Corn production goes into beef, which again, isn't an efficient way to feed cattle. So if your local beef production is efficient, you may find that you're talking apples and oranges with an American. See what I'm saying?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 13:05#8329570 likes
Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.
Please read this article. Dr. Frank Mitloehner is one of the authors of this article.
Quotes from the part with the title "Methane vs Biogenic Methane":
Fossil methane impacts the climate differently than biogenic methane.
Bottom line: Fossil methane increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which drives warming.
As part of the biogenic carbon cycle, the carbon originally utilized by the plant is returned to the atmosphere, contributing no net gain of CO2.
Look at Figure 5 and Figure 6 on page 5.
Quotes from the part with the title "Climate Impact Potential/GWP* (GWP-Star)":
Because CO2 emissions last in the atmosphere for so long, they can continue to impact warming for centuries to come. New emissions are added on top of those that were previously emitted [added by me - new emissions of CO2 accumulate], leading to increases in the total atmospheric stock or concentration of CO2. As a result, when additional CO2 is emitted, additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
In contrast, methane emissions degrade in the atmosphere relatively quickly, after about 12 years, and do not act cumulatively over long periods of time [added by me - methane emissions do NOT accumulate]. For a constant rate of methane emissions, one molecule in effect replaces a previously emitted molecule that has since broken down. This means that for a steady rate of methane release—as emitted by a constant number of dairy cows, for example—the amount of methane in the atmosphere (concentration) stays at the same level and does not increase. As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
This improved understanding of how short-lived versus long-lived emissions affect climate differently is critical to addressing further global warming. Limiting climate change requires that we bring emissions of CO2 and other long-lived GHGs down to net-zero (Frame et al., 2018). For methane, however, it is possible to have steady ongoing emissions that do not result in additional warming (Frame et al., 2018).
Look at Figure 7 on page 7.
Figure 7 shows that CO2 accumulates but methane does not accumulate.
One of the problems with many articles is that they don't discuss the difference between biogenic methane and non-biogenic methane. And they talk about "emissions" (outputs), but don't talk about "influxes" (inputs").
This article talks about the difference between Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane early in the article, but later just talks about Methane (without splitting it into Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane).
The key points are that:
- fossil methane causes more global warming because when it breaks down it adds more CO2 to the atmosphere
- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 13:21#8329590 likes
The country that I live in is very efficient at producing lamb and beef, I am not sure if this is totally true, but I read once that our lamb and beef has a lower carbon footprint even when it is flown to the other side of the world, than the lamb and beef produced locally there.
And our government here wants to cut back our lamb and beef production to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. They seem to think that it is better for other places to produce lamb and beef locally with a huge carbon footprint, rather than use our lamb and beef with a smaller carbon footprint.
Can you see why the problem of global warming won't get solved?
The country that I live in is very efficient at producing lamb and beef, I am not sure if this is totally true, but I read once that our lamb and beef has a lower carbon footprint even when it is flown to the other side of the world, than the lamb and beef produced locally there.
And our government here wants to cut back our lamb and beef production to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. They seem to think that it is better for other places to produce lamb and beef locally with a huge carbon footprint, rather than use our lamb and beef with a smaller carbon footprint.
And that's just wrong. If you're very efficient, then you're a model for everyone else to follow. Not only are you helping the climate by being so efficient, your meat is healthier than what you'd get elsewhere.
Can you see why the problem of global warming won't get solved?
It won't be solved by humans as they are now. I agree with that. We can change though. We can morph into a species that reacts intelligently. I'm not guaranteeing that will happen, I'm just saying that we have a history of being incredibly adaptable. It's possible.
It won't be solved by humans as they are now. I agree with that. We can change though. We can morph into a species that reacts intelligently. I'm not guaranteeing that will happen, I'm just saying that we have a history of being incredibly adaptable. It's possible.
The big difference between you and me Frank, is that you are an optimistic pessimist, and I am a pessimistic optimist.
The big difference between you and me Frank, is that you are an optimistic pessimist, and I am a pessimistic optimist.
Wow! I think that's actually true about me. I accept death. It would take a while to explain why, but I'm ok with oblivion. It's from the door to oblivion that you can see how beautiful it all really is.
How are you a pessimistic optimist?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 14:11#8329840 likes
Try reading something other than one guy from the meat industry.
Try reading what I quoted.
For a constant rate of methane emissions, one molecule in effect replaces a previously emitted molecule that has since broken down. This means that for a steady rate of methane release—as emitted by a constant number of dairy cows, for example—the amount of methane in the atmosphere (concentration) stays at the same level and does not increase. As a result, when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs (Frame et al., 2018).
Look at the graph that you posted and ask yourself, "has the rate of methane emissions been constant over the time period 1984 to 2022 (38 years)?".
Methane emissions do NOT accumulate if the rate of methane emissions is constant.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 14:41#8329880 likes
I can see that there are possibilities for solving problems (like solving global warming). But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include self interest (at many levels, individuals, groups, countries, etc), greed, hatred, ignorance, arrogance, suspicion, doubt, lack of caring for others, etc.
Somebody suggested that the reason that we have never found evidence of aliens is that all civilizations destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel. Increasing technology usually means more powerful energy sources. Will anybody misuse it (accidently or on purpose) and destroy the world?
Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Good ole Murphy. But necessity is the mother of invention. I wouldn't rely on good intentions. Most good intentions are a veil behind which lies the same old greedy buttheadedness. You have to give up on the goal to finally realize the ends don't justify the means. It's a Protestant principle. Do they have Protestants where you are? :razz:
- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants.
You keep repeating yourself by quoting the same source (which I have already read) and ignoring my questions/responses.
Two key questions that you need to answer
1. ------------
Virtually every source available (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc) states that methane is responsible for 14% of the total global warming and that livestock production is a significant part of that. Dr. Mitloehne seems to be denying that. So for the record are you saying that NOAA, IPCC etc are all wrong? Yes or no.
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.
Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.
For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.
This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective).
YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming and they are actively working on reducing methane production from cattle farming (details in your article). So please choose - do you agree with your source or not?
We have looped around in this back & forth 3 times now - if you have something new or different to say I will continue this conversation. Otherwise I give you the last word.
YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming
You guys aren't talking about the same thing, Eric. His source claims that there's an opportunity to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere if we reduce the methane emissions from livestock farming. He hasn't contested that. He's just saying that as it is, (probably more so in his country where farming isn't as inefficient as it is here) livestock farming is net-zero because the CO2 the cows put out is reabsorbed by the plants they eat, so it's a cycle.
You're talking about a different issue: which is that we can go beyond net-zero and make farming net-negative. The plants the cattle and sheep eat will have to absorb CO2 that's from somewhere other than farming. Like from your gas tank. See?
Reply to frank
It can be confusing trying to make sense of Agree's multiple claims & evasions. I have been narrow focusing on two of his (I assume that's his preferred pronoun) stated positions - one of which is based on the papers by Mitloehne (who we know is an industry shill) - and the other which contradicts Mitloehne.
1) Provided it does not increase, so called biogenic CH4 is not contributing to global warming
This is a claim made by Mitloehne. Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. I have no illusions that Agree will change his mind on this - my mission here is simply to get him to acknowledge that Mitloehne is all by himself in making this claim. Of course Agree cannot get himself to do this - instead he keeps repeating the quotes from Mitloehne.
As we all know, biogenic CH4 is increasing every year, so this point is mute, but even under the counterfactual assumption of no increase it is still false.
2) We should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2
Agree has repeatedly stated that it is a mistake to try to reduce biogenic CO2 and we should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2. And here he contradicts his own source! Mitloehne's stated mission is to reduce CH4 production from cattle production through various means. Whatever else we may think, reducing CH4 emissions from any source is a good thing. So I am trying to get Agree to acknowledge that he is contradicting his source.
Re this second point: Of course we would be much better off if we stop raising cattle for food altogether. And you could argue the point that such reduction is insufficient AND lulls us into believing that we are doing everything we can - but again that is a separate discussion.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 20:57#8331290 likes
Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source.
Could you give an example of that?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 23, 2023 at 21:04#8331370 likes
Reply to frank
Thanks Frank, you have explained the situation better than I have. Many of the other people in this discussion are talking about a different issue to the one that I am talking about.
Thanks Frank, you have explained the situation better than I have. Many of the other people in this discussion are talking about a different issue to the one that I am talking about.
Fruits, nuts, chickens, and crops all require transport to market.
They are less costly to transport and process than beef cattle. Also, they can be sold locally thus avoiding the need for abattoirs and transport. Chickens can be made ready for the cooking by the famer. Of course, so can cattle on a small scale, but it is a much greater undertaking.
I am not generally in favor of large scale, monoculture cropping, in any case, and the land that is suitable for cattle may well not be suitable for crops. Are you aware of how much forest in South America is being cleared for beef cattle farming?
And per the above this additional methane is responsible for at least 14% of global warming (other estimates are higher).
Now consider this statement by Mitloehne - which our friend Agree keeps quoting:
“when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs”
So think this through. The current level of concentration is roughly 1900 ppb and this contributes 14% of global warming. The plain language meaning of the phrase “when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years” is that the there is a balance between the methane converting to CO2 and new methane being generated by all sources. I.e., in 12 years the concentration of methane would still be 1900 ppb.
So Mitloehne is saying that in 12 years, even tho the level is still 1900 ppl, somehow these new molecules of methane (which replaced the ones that converted to CO2) will somehow no longer contribute to global warming. Really??? Are the laws of physics going to change in 12 years? Do the new molecules of methane have some special property that the current molecules do not have? I think not.
In a sense my statement “Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source” is not quite accurate. It would be really bizarre if a research scientist were to make the statement such as - our predictions are based on methane behaving the same in the future. That would be roughly equivalent to saying our estimates are based on the sun still rising in the east and setting in the west.
So I will re-phrase my statement: “No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”
What’s frustrating is that most of this could be avoided if we just say to ourselves “Maybe when thousands of scientists around the world tell us that methane emissions from livestock are a problem, we should take that seriously.”
Reply to EricH
Right. So let's start with some common ground, ok?
There is a carbon cycle. When you eat, you take in carbon in the form of fats, carbohydrates, and protein. Your body decomposes and metabolizes these substances to create ATP. The use of ATP increases the amount of dissolved CO2 in your bloodstream, making your blood acidotic. Fairly quickly, the carbonic acid would screw up your heart and you'd die if your body didn't do something about this. In fact, it does two things: your kidneys buffer the acid with bicarb, and the CO2 dissolves out of your blood into the air in your lungs. You exhale the CO2 out and it travels around the atmosphere.
When you exhale, you're increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere by a tiny bit. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere rises a little every time you breathe out. If it's summer time, the plants around you will absorb a fair amount of that CO2. Some will be absorbed by bodies of water and rocks. The rest will just float around.
“No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”
No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true Scotsman has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. Because that would mean that he was not a true Scotsman.
Also, very few unreliable sources have ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. You have introduced a red herring. Nobody is disputing that methane is (and always will be) a greenhouse gas.
I am working on a post to describe the whole situation. It takes into account the 4 types of gas that need to be considered:
- biogenic CO2
- biogenic methane
- fossil CO2
- fossil methane
The amount or concentration of methane in the atmosphere depends on both biogenic methane and fossil methane, and the fact that methane breaks down to CO2 and water vapor after about 12 years.
Heartbreaking story today in the Sydney Morning Herald - that nearly the entire brood of last year's Emperor Penguin chicks, around 10,000 in number, have drowned due to the premature break-up of pack ice in the Antarctic Ocean, largely due to the effect of global warming on the ice pack. They're not able to swim until fledged, and the ice broke up before they were ready.
In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.
a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants.
Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?
A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900
[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.
So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.
Have I finally made myself clear?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 25, 2023 at 21:18#8335520 likes
I have read your analysis carefully and there are a number of points that I disagree with. To prevent things from getting too complicated I will just point out 1 of the problems in this reply.
If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.
So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C)
You admit that emitting a constant amount of methane each year will not increase the total amount (or concentration) of methane in the atmosphere. In your example it will still be 1900 ppb.
If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming?
Answer: Your calculation of an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) of warming is not based on emitting a constant amount of methane each year. It is based on the amount of methane being emitted each year increasing.
If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming?
Sigh. I'll try one more time.
The assumption is that the amount of biogenic methane remains constant.
If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).
I.e., If the current global temp is X and biogenic CH4 remains constant in the atmosphere, then in 10 years (ignoring everything else) the global temp is going to be X + 0.0224° F
Again this is based on the amount of biogenic CH4 being constant. Now if the emission rate were to go down then the contribution to global warming would go down (less than 0.0224° F per decade). And if CH4 emissions were to go up even more (as seems likely) then the contribution to global warming would be even higher than 0.0224° F per decade.
I can't think of a way to make this any simpler or more obvious.
[Edit]
In case it was not clear, the biogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming in this simplified scenario because it is re-cycled by plants.
[Another edit]
Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence:
If the total amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is constant then it will not cause any additional warming above & beyond what it is currently causing - 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 26, 2023 at 20:35#8337510 likes
This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.
The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)
So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.
The phrase "contributes 14% of global warming" can be interpreted in different ways. Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" or "14% of the RATE OF INCREASE of global warming"?
The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture.
This may be true but the overall global warming effect of biogenic methane is different to the overall global warming effect of fossil methane. Because biogenic methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is taken up by plants. Fossil methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is NOT taken up by plants. Your statement is about "emissions", not about "effect on global warming".
If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).
This statement is incorrect and I am not saying that the laws of physics are changing. If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade then that by itself will not increase the amount of global warming. Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane.
I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two.
Reply to Mikie
If the Arctic permafrost abruptly melted it would put up a ginormous amount of methane and we'd all die. That could happen at any point. Like tomorrow morning.
We could all wake up dead tomorrow. Like everybody. :grimace:
If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).
— EricH
This statement is incorrect and I am not saying that the laws of physics are changing. If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade then that by itself will not increase the amount of global warming. Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane.
It is closer to being correct than it is to being incorrect. Greenhouse gases act like insulation. So global temperatures start to increase when the insulation effect increases, and will eventually reach a stable temperature for any stable increase. The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. So the assumption that warming will continue due to a steady state of greenhouse gases is very much closer to the truth, than that the planet will stop warming immediately when greenhouse gases stop increasing.
But as it happens, CO2 and CH4 levels are still increasing.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 26, 2023 at 21:17#8337690 likes
I’m not a denier in any sense but there are two viewpoints that have to be balanced here.
Firstly the recognition that the planet goes through cyclical long term temperature changes and secondly that we’re pumping way to much CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and the carbon footprint has expanded exponentially especially in industrialised nations.
Having said that I’d say climate change is real and that within a short time frame we’ve sped the global warming cycle up a little bit
Greenhouse gases act like insulation. So global temperatures start to increase when the insulation effect increases, and will eventually reach a stable temperature for any stable increase. The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. So the assumption that warming will continue due to a steady state of greenhouse gases is very much closer to the truth, than that the planet will stop warming immediately when greenhouse gases stop increasing.
You make a very interesting point. This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this.
However, some climate scientists has started rethinking this issue. See the following NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change
However, if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.
That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up:
Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream:
Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream:
I don't know. It's not a good idea to lie to people. Once they find out you lied, they won't believe anything you say.
"Greenhouse gas" isn't a single substance; methane, CO2, CFCs, and other gasses all have varying periods of time before they are broken down. A cubic foot of methane gas lasts about 12 years but absorbs much more heat than the much longer lasting CO2. CFC gas lasts a long time because it is non-reactive. However, it is very good at absorbing heat.
We are not adding a lot of CFCs to the atmosphere, but what we have added lingers a long time.
SO, if we cut methane pollution -- which we can and should do immediately, the benefit would show up relatively quickly -- 10 years. But that would not solve the whole problem.
Reply to BC
We were talking about the lag between when the CO2 hits the atmosphere and when the effects kick in. At one time models showed that most of the effects of the CO2 we're putting up now won't be felt until the next century. Agree is saying they've backed that down to decades.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 01:21#8338260 likes
Here is a simple flow diagram showing the Carbon Cycle ignoring Fossil Carbon. I would like to find out what people think of it.
It is meant to be a starting point for discussing the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon. I will post a picture of the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon soon.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 01:24#8338270 likes
The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries.
Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts.
I was not aware that there was previous work saying that "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly".
The quote does indicate that "the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries".
I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.
I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.
Right. It is. From your own quote:
Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries.
This corresponds with what @unenlightened was saying. At least how I read it. So your talk about how climate scientists “changed their thinking” was a red herring, and the quote you provided from NASA only reiterates what was said.
The diversion of talking about CO2 and temperature lag is exactly that: a diversion.
Reply to frank Fine, but heat is heat and you can't identify which degree of heat is from water vapor, CO2, CH4, N20 (nitrous oxide), Perfluorocarbons, hydroflurocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. My point was that it it practically doesn't matter a lot whether the effect of a GH gas kicks in 10 years from today or 200 year from now.
Some people, (not thinking of you) are always looking for an interpretation or 'flaw' or angle that gets us off the hook.
What I want to say to @agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked.
I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.
Yes. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere now, means that global warming is going to continue for a long time, even if all the human contribution to the GHG content of the atmosphere ceased immediately.
That isn't inconsistent with saying, "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly." A simple relevant curve is an asymptotic approach to a new temperature stability point. Consider the following graph, but with the vertical axis being temperature and the horizontal axis being time:
Suppose all of the excess GHGs in the atmosphere had just been dumped into the atmosphere today. For such a thought experiment we would expect the temperature of the Earth to increase along a similar curve. Most of the increase in temperature will occur relatively quickly, with the asymptotic approach to a new stable temperature going on for a long while after.
Of course the actual picture is more complicated, but does that help in understanding why the two statements under discussion aren't contradictory?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 06:10#8338700 likes
What I want to say to agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked.
When you say "altogether stopping greenhouse gas production" are you including emissions of biogenic methane?
- there are just under 1 billion cows in the world
- there are over 1 billion sheep in the world
- there are about 1 billion goats in the world (this has increased by more than half in the last four decades)
Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the long-term?
Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the short-term?
Well, this problem (like most problems involving humans) isn't an issue of not figuring out what to do, it is a problem of actually doing it.
There's the rub. People don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to really combat the problem. Also,
"While loss and damage was discussed at the Paris climate talks in 2015, progress has been slow. Industrialized countries have been reluctant to commit funding, concerned it could lead to being legally liable for the impacts of climate change. At this year's climate talks, developing countries say it's a crucial part of climate justice."
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage
Money is the answer to 99% of all questions, including why can't we solve/mitigate climate change?
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2023 at 08:54#8339080 likes
So if we stop burning fossil fuels now, and stop increasing livestock now, the climate is going to go on getting warmer, at a gradually slowing rate for a long time, in human lifetime terms. As has been seen on the global temperature graph, the heating effect on land is much greater than that in the oceans. We are also seeing more than one positive feedback effect. First, the melting of sea and land ice darkens and thereby increases the absorption of the sun's radiation. Second, the disruption of ecosystems reduces their ability to absorb CO2. Third, wildfires. Fourth, desertification already in progress from human overexploitation of ecosystems. Fifth, the increasing surface temperature of the sea reduces its ability to absorb CO2.
So far, all the climate models pronounced realistic and likely have under-estimated the effects seen already We have seen in Venus, that extreme, runaway global warming is not impossible to the point of being inimical to life and unsurvivable by humans.
But no worries chaps, carry on eating beef and flying round the world on holiday, all our politicians are very stable geniarses, and will solve the problem before anything bad happens, global oil and global meat are on the case.
Fine, but heat is heat and you can't identify which degree of heat is from water vapor, CO2, CH4, N20 (nitrous oxide), Perfluorocarbons, hydroflurocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride. My point was that it it practically doesn't matter a lot whether the effect of a GH gas kicks in 10 years from today or 200 year from now.
True. It's just a point that climate nerds who read a lot about it would be interested in: "hey! they changed that!"
What I want to say to agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked.
He hasn't suggested that we aren't on the hook. People hungry to pile on have shown their disregard for him by continuously trying to pin that on him. It's probably a psychological problem on their parts.
Reply to Mikie
What he had to say was really interesting. He comes from a part of the world where cattle and lamb farming is ultra efficient, but his government is struggling to adhere to Paris climate accords, so they're going to try to reduce meat production.
Meanwhile on the other side of the world, there's no interest at all in the meager Paris accords and meat production is crazy inefficient and floods the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer.
So he feels like idiots are running the world, which is true.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 13:32#8339540 likes
How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong.
I have also introduced sheep and goats. They are all ruminants and 3 billion ruminants must produce a hell of a lot of methane. Not to mention the methane from their dung.
Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming"
Jeez! How many times do I have to say this? Yes.
I'll try a slightly different approach. Maybe this time it will sink in.
In pre-industrial times CH4 was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). CH4 is currently at roughly 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. 1900 - 722 = 1178 ppb. I'll round up to 1200 to make numbers simpler. Biogenic CH4 is responsible roughly 1/2 of this = 600 ppb.
Once again, the assumption behind this thought experiment is that biogenic methane stays the same, so the concentration stays at 600 ppb. This 600 ppb is currently causing global temps to increase by 0.0224° F per decade. Divide by 10 and it is causing global temps to increase by 0.00224° F per year. Divide that by 365 to get the daily increase (I'll let you do the math on this one).
Now every day a certain amount of these CH4 molecules decay to CO2 - likely the ones that have been around the longest. Hello plants! Here's some nice CO2 for you. Yummm. No contribution to global warming by those CO2 molecules.
Meanwhile, back in the atmosphere, those CH4 molecules that decay to CO2 are replaced by an equal number of brand new CH4 molecules. How do we know it's equal? That's the assumption behind this thought experiment - the total biogenic methane stays constant. So each day, new CH4 molecules are created courtesy of the cattle industry (among others). And at the end of each 24 hours we still have CH4 at 600 ppb. And each day those nasty CH4 molecules are doing their very best to trap heat and make the earth a little bit warmer.
So after 10 years you add up the daily contributions and - once again assuming that the biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays at 600 ppb - the earth will be 0.0224° F warmer.
Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane.
It's based on the amount of biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere staying the same, so any CH4 which converts to CO2 is replaced by an equal amount of newly created CH4. That is the plain language meaning of the phrase "biogenic methane stays constant".
Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?
I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two.
Oh Lord, give me strength. Look, knock yourself out if it makes you happy, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. So one more time. If you cannot provide a coherent answer to this question then it will clear that you simply do not know what you're talking about.
If biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, how much warmer will global temps be in 10 years due to this biogenic CH4?
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2023 at 16:18#8339860 likes
It is, as a matter of fact, but the warming comes mostly from the sun; but the insulating effect is comparable, particularly in the way that it takes some time for the insulation to have an effect. Stop defending the indefensible for god's sake! You keep the coat on and the heat gradually builds up. and it works the same when you insulate a planet in such a way that the radiant heat can get in, but the lower energy emitted heat cannot get out.
It really isn't at all okey dokey, pardn'r. It’s a scandal, an outrage, and a looming catastrophe. And you are gaily peddling ignorant bollocks. Your vacuous posts are literally lethal, because people are already dying while your denials and prevarications continue to impede agreement.
Yes, you’ve introduced all kinds of issues— one silly thing after another, all shown to be ridiculous. But by all means continue— it’s good for others to watch new denialist “views” get debunked over and over.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 17:21#8340070 likes
But no worries chaps, carry on eating beef and flying round the world on holiday, all our politicians are very stable geniarses, and will solve the problem before anything bad happens, global oil and global meat are on the case.
People barely get involved with local politics unless it quite literally immediately affects them (and then not even most of the time). How do you expect people to care about anything further than that? Politics is just characters in media talking. People barely take actions that help their local communities let alone "The Climate". And that's only talking about people who agree with what the climate scientists are saying or if they do agree, who think that something can be done and it's not a foregone conclusion.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 18:03#8340120 likes
Reply to unenlightened
People want cheap things. Adding costs to manufacturers to try to have cleaner emissions or greener processes will not make the consumer happy, lower output, and lower profit. Then, the politicians who claim to be "pro-economy" will rail against the regulations, and the process will continue.
Not to mention the epistemological claim of how to measure progress when there are so many sources adding to the problem. The pro-economy parties will say it's a risky, untested regulation that will hamper current success. And thus, ironically, they will take a line from Keynes and say:
"In the long run, we are all dead". And that is basically the cynical view of most political actions.
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2023 at 18:08#8340160 likes
How do you expect people to care about anything further than that?
I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 18:10#8340170 likes
I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about.
Hey we all care about something. You are railing publicly and I am answering publicly about an issue that affects the wider public.
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2023 at 18:12#8340180 likes
I thought I was directly discussing climate change- specifically, the general mechanism for the inertia you are seeing.
Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 18:25#8340210 likes
Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring.
That was a crisis people perceived could immediately harm them or their relatives- as in hospitalization or death. And even then, in some countries people ignored the guidelines or actively worked against it. Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem. So I don't see how any of that really counters this:
People want cheap things. Adding costs to manufacturers to try to have cleaner emissions or greener processes will not make the consumer happy, lower output, and lower profit. Then, the politicians who claim to be "pro-economy" will rail against the regulations, and the process will continue.
Not to mention the epistemological claim of how to measure progress when there are so many sources adding to the problem. The pro-economy parties will say it's a risky, untested regulation that will hamper current success. And thus, ironically, they will take a line from Keynes and say:
"In the long run, we are all dead". And that is basically the cynical view of most political actions.
I think that is what is the case. What is going on.
Believe me, brotha, I too care about something that is large in scope (antinatalism). And I too, lament how people just don't get how (in my case at least) not doing one simple thing, will prevent a future person's suffering, and will not violate their autonomy, and force them into the suffering entailed in existence. But you see, you will balk at what I say and call me a defeatist (though I take that term as a good thing), and many other things. What you think of me, many will think of your ideas on actions regarding climate change.
unenlightenedAugust 27, 2023 at 18:38#8340260 likes
That truism has no force. People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want.
Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem.
Polls have shown people do care, and think governments should be doing more. There's large turnouts at protests, there's increasingly bold direct actions taken all over the world to stop drilling, new coal plants, deforestation, etc. On local levels, especially in cities, you see all kinds of innovative policies being implemented. Some will work well, others won't.
Not to mention that the media is finally starting to report on climate change more seriously. This is partly because the effects all around us are undeniable. It's no longer a future problem, or one that "other people" have to concern themselves with. The evidence is everywhere on earth, and there's no longer anywhere to hide. Even here in New England, a fairly insulated place, there are very real effects.
There's a lot of work to be done. There's some movement, but not nearly enough -- and there may not be enough time, unless there's a drastic change in political will. Right now, the obstacles are twofold: corporate and political. The fossil fuel industry has massive pull, and outright owns the "conservative" media and major political party (Republicans). Through their propaganda, campaign funding and lobbying, they've sown "doubt" among their audience and inaction among their beholden politicians.
Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us.
Instead we're left talking about cows and how they're really not a problem because they "don't contribute any 'additional' warming". Wonderful. Meanwhile the planet is burning.
The attitude that nothing can be done because "human nature" strikes me as another useless position -- one more impediment, more dead weight.
Reply to Mikie This next American election will be illuminating because you clearly have one side pushing climate change policies and the other side pushing increased fossil fuel production. I predict it will be really close again, and the fossil fuel party has a good chance of winning. The price of gas has gone up about $1.50 a gallon in the past five years, and there have been howls of despair. People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 19:15#8340390 likes
People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want.
I'm not saying people don't want to do something about climate change (well, some don't but..), it's just that to get that takes sacrifices that are too much for people to really want to take that action.
Consider a working class individual/family that goes to XMart (made up), because of its dirt low prices on food and goods. They are doing what is economically what they perceive in their best interests. They can't afford better quality food/products. XMart will do. In fact, it may be more expensive in the long run because it's cheaper quality, but that's not what they are thinking about in the short term.
Meanwhile, higher the economic totem pole, is the upper middle classer going to OrganicFoods the nifty high quality organic food market. They see that all the food is marked for organic and greener food sources. The prices are higher as a result so they can afford it. Meanwhile, they are driving to these high end green food marts in their Mercedes and BMW large SUVs.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 19:19#8340400 likes
Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us.
Yeah one problem is the idea of separation between production and consumption. These issues of regulation affect the owners of manufacturing and agricultural enterprises. Most people are not these people. Thus, it's not "the people's problem", and thus it is left to the people that "do" care, special interests and such who wheel and deal in this kind of reform. Is it hitting someone's pocket book right now? People tend to care less.
schopenhauer1August 27, 2023 at 19:20#8340410 likes
I predict it will be really close again, and the fossil fuel party has a good chance of winning. The price of gas has gone up about $1.50 a gallon in the past five years, and there have been howls of despair. People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it.
Exactly. And that's basically what I have been saying. It's a main factor in the inertia.
People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it.
People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.
We can shape society through policy. Look at smoking. Or through technology — like streaming or digital music. I miss old record stores — but yet I’ve found myself defaulting to YouTube or Spotify because it’s that much easier — there’s less friction involved. Plus car (and computer) producers don’t bother selling their products with CD functions anyway.
None of that was my choice— if it were up to me, I’d go back to how it was before everything was on a phone. But things change and I go along because it’s easier or cheaper or more convenient somehow. Plus I don’t feel like it’s a major moral failing.
I suspect many Americans are in the same boat with climate change: they want a cleaner environment and a better planet for their kids and grandkids, but it’s expensive to buy solar panels and EVs— public transit either doesn’t exist or sucks, etc. Plus, not a lot is known about the best use of time.
That’s why it’s up to those who both care about and have a good understanding of the problem to educate and organize, to affect the necessary changes of economic and productive policy. The tobacco industry is a good example, but the fossil fuel industry is much more politically powerful, and more embedded in everything we use. So the task is harder.
So there’s no need to sacrifice much if we implement sensible changes. It’s a false choice. We subsidize fossil fuels right now. Going from an oil furnace to heat pump isn’t sacrificing anything. It’s actually an improvement.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 22:09#8340690 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1
Please stop talking common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 22:11#8340700 likes
Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?
Okay, I have thought carefully about what you are saying and I think that I can see what you mean.
I have been talking about the theoretical situation where the Earth is at its equilibrium temperature. In that case having a constant emission of methane does not cause global warming.
But the Earth is not at its equilibrium temperature at the moment. The equilibrium temperature is higher than at present (because of the current levels of CO2 and methane). So the current levels of CO2 and methane are causing global warming even if the emissions of biogenic methane were constant.
Am I describing what you are saying correctly?
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 27, 2023 at 23:00#8340800 likes
Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.
I thought about it too and I think he's right. If we dumped a dose of methane into the atmosphere now, wouldn't the energy it captures accumulate year after year? I think it would. After a decade, the accumulated heat would be higher than it was after the first year.
I think the conclusion is that if we dose the atmosphere with methane every year, it would contribute to global warming until equilibrium is reached, but I don't know how long that takes with a constant amount of methane.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 28, 2023 at 00:17#8340970 likes
Not all of the something-industrial complex are purely evil. ;)
What I am about to say will upset a lot of people. Don't worry Mikie, it is not about cows. :grin:
Big Oil is not purely evil. What do you want oil companies to do? Starve people of fossil fuels?
Starving people of fossil fuels will harm a lot of people. Especially poor people and developing countries. That is why we need to move away from fossil fuels slowly enough to avoid creating big problems.
Well off people may think that global-warming/climate-change is the biggest problem in the world. But some people are struggling just to afford food, shelter, warmth, energy, etc. For these people global warming is not their primary concern. Oil companies are supplying these people with what they want and need.
People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.
Sure, but we're having a tough time electing people (Democrats) who want people to make rather trivial sacrifices. The fossil fuel lobby (Republicans) controls the House! There are other factors at play, but if people really wanted to limit fossil fuels and transition to a greener economy, Democrats would be in much better shape.
"National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted."
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center
Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.
Yes, that does help. Thank you for the clear explanation.
:up:
schopenhauer1August 28, 2023 at 01:31#8341090 likes
The problem is that we use energy not for free and we make waste. You want people not to be burdened with this, at least be a situational antinatalist.
Reply to Agree to DisagreeReply to frank
I wasn't even thinking about the equilibrium temp - but yes - I'm glad you finally got it. It takes an exceptionally honest person to admit they were wrong, so kudos to you both. :cheer:
Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. Again - it's your source - and Mitloehner makes a pretty convincing case that (apart from anything else) reducing methane emissions from livestock farming is a relatively simple & cost effective way to slow down the rate of global warming.
Of course eliminating all livestock farming would be much better - but that's a separate discussion.
So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it?
I don’t think they realize the importance of voting. Some rather take stronger actions, for some it’s too difficult, etc. For some it’s apathy, yes, but not 3/4.
What do you think of this (methanisation of CO2): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982023000938?via%3Dihub
And what about industrial photosynthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06390
They look very energy intensive but I think in some areas and at certain times (over production of solar or wind) this could be interesting. Instead of carbon capturing it, we recycle CO2.
unenlightenedAugust 28, 2023 at 10:21#8341880 likes
Reply to Benkei I agree with you these might have a small place in the green energy network and hopefully the efficiency might be improved a little.
If I was king of the world, though, my pet project would be solar powered desalination plants in N Africa, Chile, etc, wherever there is a seaside desert, providing lubrication for natural photosynthesis. Greening the desert looks to be a good way of directly cooling and absorbing CO2, and could eventually become self sustaining by attracting more precipitation. It could even include growing some human food for any starving humans round and about.
If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power.
schopenhauer1August 28, 2023 at 14:49#8342310 likes
If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power.
Perhaps it is the case that there is something flawed in the hubbub of human production in general.
You say that there is more than wanting. The whole problem stems from "wants". The whole of human production and consumption is predicated on this base instinct. It isn't solely for some detached edification. Engineering doesn't come out of a vacuum. It comes out of demand. Sure, you can have your tinkerer that just likes to tinker. But the big projects are only had by way of large investments. That takes want. Want. Want. Want.
Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this.
Quietude, negation, non-production is reviled. But perhaps it is the inverse and it is production that is evil. It is lauded as that which sustains. But perhaps that is exactly the problem. Sustaining is perhaps no good.
Why do I picture some people here as if they are Bertrand Russells with pipes sitting in their cushy armchairs cluching pearls on a philosophy forum?
Ironically, for this grandfatherly image of him, he was more radical than most today I would gather, and on this forum. I'd love to discuss quietude and non-production with the idler. He wouldn't clutch at pearls.
Different ideas people. Different ideas than the unassailable ones.
Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this.
I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.
schopenhauer1August 28, 2023 at 14:59#8342330 likes
I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.
That's part of it. However, it's a much deeper kind of pessimism about production I am talking about. Look at this, as I type on a keyboard with a bright screen, made in engineering labs and then off to (mostly) Asian production facilities to be shipped over to the distributors along with the tens of thousands of other parts I use daily. I don't focus on it until it's broke (I won't invoke Heidegger's "broken tool" here.. that bastard). But it's used to push information around. The information is instrumental too. So is survival. So is entertainment.
It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will.
unenlightenedAugust 28, 2023 at 15:57#8342370 likes
Economies of scale also apply to the cow industry (sorry Mikie :grin: - you can substitute any other industry if you don't like cows). Raising a few cows in a barn is probably much less efficient (in terms of fossil fuel per kilogram of cow) than bigger scale cow raising techniques.
In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. The person to read in this respect is Karl, not Arthur.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 29, 2023 at 02:31#8343550 likes
In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites.
In 2022 there were just over 40,000 McDonald's restaurants in the world. Which do you think is more efficient in terms of fossil fuel use? McDonald's, or 40,000 small independent hamburger restaurants?
Reply to Agree to Disagree It's axiomatic, isn't it, that a large scale operation (40K McDonald outlets) is more efficient than scattered small scale operations (40K coffee shops, diners, cafes, etc.). That doesn't make McDonald's good, from several perspectives, or the small scale operations bad.
Operating thousand-cow dairies has downsides for both the cows and the community. 1000 dairy cows are going to spend very little time outdoors grazing and cud-chewing. A small operation (50 cows) can be pastured, and a good share of the cow manure will be deposited on the pasture. Fly larvae will help break it down, as will sun and air. Shifting 50 cows from one grazed pasture to an ungrazed one is doable. Moving 1000+ cows around is a cattle drive,
A thousand cow dairy barn will produce more manure than can practically and usefully be spread on fields -- so it goes into sewage lagoons or tanks where it will produce noxious by-products and likely pollute ground water or streams. 1000 cow dairies are likely to be milking 24 hours a day, each cow being milked 2 or 3 times daily. Maximizing production and profit is the reason for thousand cow dairies, and it's likely the cows will be getting bST (bovine Somatotropin) to increase milk production, which is hard on the cows.
Huge hog operations and massive chicken and egg production facilities are more efficient too -- but at the cost of the animals' quality of life and the quality of the end product. Pigs like to be outside -- they are probably the brightest bulb in the barn yard next to the dog. Chickens are, well, not "smart" but they benefit from movement outside as well -- actually being outside with room to move around and eat whatever is crawling around for an extended period of time.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 29, 2023 at 05:22#8343750 likes
Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions.
I have looked at Mitloehner's article from U Cal again and I can see 2 statements that misled me. These are:
Dr. Frank Mitloehner:Bottom line: Fossil methane increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, which drives warming.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner:As part of the biogenic carbon cycle, the carbon originally utilized by the plant is returned to the atmosphere contributing no net gain of CO2.
The first statement says that fossil methane is bad. This is correct and the same applies to fossil CO2.
The second statement says that biogenic carbon is not bad because it is part of a cycle. I assumed that biogenic carbon meant both CO2 and methane. While it is true that biogenic methane is part of a cycle, the amount in the atmosphere at any particular time can make the amount of global warming bigger or smaller.
Farming practices (e.g. farming efficiency, feed crop yields, veterinary care, sustainable feed practices, animal nutrition, etc) affect the amount of methane in the atmosphere. The number of cows also affects the amount of methane in the atmosphere.
So reducing the number of cows would lower the amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere and lead to less global warming.
However, reducing the number of cows has some possible negative effects.
Samantha Werth, CLEAR Center at UC Davis:Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?
Pamela Tyers at CSIRO:They [cows] turn low-quality proteins [crops] from a human nutritional perspective into high-quality protein [beef and dairy] with a more balanced amino acid profile.
Many people want to eat beef and drink milk. These may become more expensive if supply is limited.
Many people will lose their jobs and have to retrain. Some people will not be happy about that. Farmers are obviously affected but there are many other associated jobs.
In the end the decision on the number of cows we should have is a compromise based on many factors.
Agree-to-DisagreeAugust 29, 2023 at 05:29#8343770 likes
It's axiomatic, isn't it, that a large scale operation (40K McDonald outlets) is more efficient than scattered small scale operations (40K coffee shops, diners, cafes, etc.). That doesn't make McDonald's good, from several perspectives, or the small scale operations bad.
You make many good points. I was only commenting on the efficiency of fossil fuel use.
China is permitting the construction of about 2 coal power plants per week.
Two odd things about this: 1) they decided to drastically increase their use of coal because it was so hot last year that the air conditioners were too big a load on their grid. And 2) that this is not particularly big news. Trump's latest circus is huge, but this, arguably a decisive fork in the road, is just miscellaneous news.
Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training.
With that in mind...The very fact that he is not spending his time inventing alternatives for coal power plants shows that he doesn't "give a flying fuck", to use the words of a wise man.
China produces about 70% of the world's coal output, although they only have about 13% of the world's coal reserves within their borders. But two of the biggest reservoirs are in countries that orbit China: Australia and Russia. So there is no incentive for them to reduce coal burning. Coal will continue to be a cheap option as their economic development continues.
The fact that they're now building new coal power plants instead of nuclear means that humanity's chances of reining in CO2 emissions is fading. One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical?
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 05, 2023 at 19:39#8358230 likes
One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical?
The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course).
The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course).
• amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say oil and coal)
• amount of fossil fuels burned by humans
since (or shortly before) the industrial revolution, something in that range?
I wouldn't expect much added to the deposits in this (geologically short) timeframe, but haven't come across solid numbers on available deposits. Numbers for burned fossil fuels since then are easier to come by, or estimates at least (Our World in Data). Graphing them out over time, should more or less be "opposite", the former going down, the latter going up, and adding them should more or less be constant over time in this timeframe.
There are cars, vehicles, machinery, houses, buildings, people, ..., all over the place, happily burning deposits in one way or other. Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff (geological timeframe) in a century or two without noticeable effects...? At least there's active research into fusion.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans?
Suppose that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is quite impactful, with consequences for future generations, and we do nothing about it. What's the worst that could happen?
some African proverb I think:We have not merely been given the world from our parents, we are also borrowing it from our children.
Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc.
According to the Energy Information Administration (US gov): as of December 31, 2021, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about about 1.16 trillion short tons, and five countries had about 75% of the world's proved coal reserves.
Global consumption of oil is currently estimated at roughly 96.5 million barrels per day. According to OPEC, global demand is expected to reach 109 million barrels per day. Estimations vary slightly, but it is predicted that - if demand forecasts hold - we will run out of oil from known reserves in about 47 years. (2023 estimate)
"Oil reserves" is complicated by the adjective "recoverable". Some oil is buried so deeply that more energy is required to obtain the oil than the oil itself contains. Western Canada's tar sands can be dug out and cleaned up enough to qualify as "crude oil" but the whole process is quite polluting.
Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc.
Well, count the major energy companies as trolls, because they are not doing anything very significant about it. And they have company. While government at various levels have taken some actions, while various companies have either worked towards a lower carbon output or manufactured equipment to reduce green house gas emissions, the world response to the threat of a global heating catastrophe has been sluggish.
Unfortunately for us all, the world's energy economy was shaped into its present form what... 200 years ago? 150 years ago? 100 years? Changing a 100 - 200 year pattern of voracious resource consumption just can't be done quickly EVEN IF everyone was enthusiastic about it, and lots of people are not even slightly enthusiastic, but are bitterly opposed to the level of change that is required.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 06, 2023 at 05:35#8358650 likes
Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc.
What percentage of humans are "trolls"? Perhaps trolls outnumber non-trolls.
I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 06, 2023 at 05:56#8358660 likes
I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Right, hence the failure in the second supposition above.
Ego-priorities — of those that will be gone soon enough, leaving our children's children...
Just don't be surprised if such moral failure is met with scorn.
But changing path doesn't mean everyone goes back to stoneage living.
I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen.
flannel jesusSeptember 06, 2023 at 07:25#8358710 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I know for a fact that the wealthy (most of them, anyway) wouldn't do even the bare minimum unless they were forced. I've spoken with people who find it literally mind boggling to think that someone would pass on having their very own yacht or cruise ship because of environmental reasons.
"You would avoid doing something just because doing that thing contributes significantly to climate change? Wow, that's inconceivable." Literally the mindset of at least like half the planet. Not just the wealthy.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 06, 2023 at 11:06#8358860 likes
I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen.
When you say "a strong world government", I think that you mean a "dictatorship".
Wikipedia:A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials.
Is that really what you want?
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 06, 2023 at 13:34#8358980 likes
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans?
I don't think this is entirely fair. Doing something about anthropogenic climate change is reducing our use of fossil fuels. Reducing our use of fossil fuels is reducing our energy consumption. And without a certain surplus of energy, modern societies as we know them are simply not possible.
The worst thing that could happen, is the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, we can try to find ways to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels, but that is by no means something that is easy, there are trade-offs (economic as well as ecologic), and it takes a lot of time and costs a ton.
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials.
— Wikipedia
Is that really what you want?
If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not?
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 06, 2023 at 17:44#8359350 likes
Just FYI, one of the numbers I was looking for was the net amount of available fossil fuels (over time). This would give an indication of net anthropogenic chemical/physical change of our shared environment, and then an assessment of net effects over time. ("Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff [...]".)
Anyway, I think only a minority of radicals demand immediate drastic political/societal change of the sort that destroys civilization, e.g. Ama Lorenz doesn't. On the other hand, I'd personally prefer not being among the generations of which our children's children say "they knew, and did nothing".
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 06, 2023 at 21:46#8359790 likes
If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not?
Do you have any goals which aren't related to global-warming/climate-change? What if the world dictatorship doesn't support or allow these other goals?
Lord Acton (and others):Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over...
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 06, 2023 at 22:12#8359840 likes
It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over...
Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy?
Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy?
I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy.
I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy.
I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 07, 2023 at 03:25#8360270 likes
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans?
One of the problems with this statement is the use of the vague term "we". Who exactly is "we"?
I assume that you mean everybody. But not everybody wants to do something. And how will the costs be distributed?
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 07, 2023 at 05:11#8360320 likes
Anyway, I think only a minority of radicals demand immediate drastic political/societal change of the sort that destroys civilization, e.g. Ama Lorenz doesn't.
Maybe they only think they don't demand radical political change of that kind out of ignorance, because they don't understand what it would take to keep global warming below say 1.5 C.
When for instance Ama Lorenz says what is quoted below, it doesn't seem to me like she really gets what would be needed to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels.
When will fossil fuels run out? If the world quickly comes to terms the planet's changing energy requirements and implements advanced tech solutions and necessary adjustment to consumption habits, fossil fuels will, hopefully, never run out.
Just FYI, one of the numbers I was looking for was the net amount of available fossil fuels (over time). This would give an indication of net anthropogenic chemical/physical change of our shared environment, and then an assessment of net effects over time. ("Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff [...]".)
The nummers she gives seem to be in the ballpark of what most experts agree on. We won't be running out of coal or natural gas anytime soon. Oil is a different matter, some think we may allready be over the peak, and the fracking revolution has only temporary delayed that downward trajectory. It's hard to give a definitive answer to this because, 1) we don't know what deposits are out there before we look for them and find them, 2) we don't know how technology will impact yields in the future before the technology exists and 3) countries probably obfuscate how much reserves they have in their deposits because of geo-political reasons.
The important thing is not necessary total reserves as such, but "usefull" reserves. What matters is Energy return on Energy invested (EROI). Reserves will technically never run out, because at some point it will take more energy to get out less energy. They will stop way before that point even, because we need a certain net energy surplus.
Most modern societies run on a high net energy surplus. They can do that because the EROI from fossil fuels was very high, and has remained relatively high because of new technologies (like fracking). The EROI of alternative energy sources is typically a lot lower. Can we keep modern societies with much lower net energy surplus, or can we find ways to increase net energy surplus without fossil fuels? Maybe, but it's by no means a certainty, not in theory and certainly not in practice.
So you know, it's easy to say we must phase out fossil fuels, it's another thing to know how we can do it in the timeframe necessary to avert climate change.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree, there are two suppositions/scenarios listed, where we could be a majority or enough to make a difference, like actors deciding on a path forward. What matters is in/actions decided upon. Sort of implicit in the suppositions.
(For completion, you're free to add the remaining couple or so scenarios/permutations — climate change or not × do something or not — they just didn't seem as interesting.)
damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Hmm Didn't that come up earlier?
Did it? Usually people either deny climate change or the consequences... or they "deny" the consequences of phasing out fossil fuels.
So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't... what is left is figuring out what is least damned. There's still a lot of gradations to damnation.
I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic.
I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she?
So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't...
— ChatteringMonkey
Such certainty...?
Well, unless sufficiently justified, the suppositions/scenarios above still apply to those "doomsayers", right?
(I mean ... "Suppose [...] What's the worst that could happen?")
Incidentally, I know someone, not a climatologist, that, with a big sigh, says we're too late, but still have to try.
The Holocene extinction is another factor here; something that ought to be addressed.
I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.
None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.
I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us.
I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.
None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.
I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us.
Well said. It's becoming the mainstream approach to think in terms of adaptation. It's just common sense at this point.
I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will
It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.
It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue.
The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 07, 2023 at 20:41#8362100 likes
I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she?
Queen Elizabeth became Queen due to the death of her father. The position of King/Queen had become more of a figurehead role by then. She had no direct political power but she had a lot of influence. She provided checks and balances to the politicians in commonwealth countries. The arrangement meant that both the Queen and the politicians didn't have absolute power (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change
— Merkwurdichliebe
Either that or they just don't give a flying fuck
Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them.
Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them.
I don't know. The article said last summer's heat revealed the weakness of the grid. I guess you do need air-conditioning to manufacture the computer chips that the US won't export anymore. Assholes.
The point was: two coal burning power plants per week. Holy crap.
Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them.
Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 08, 2023 at 04:46#8362950 likes
Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?
The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 08, 2023 at 04:57#8362980 likes
The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza.
This makes me wonder who in the west would benifit from the arrangement you have predicted. Is it crazy to look at those who push for the most radical green policies?
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 08, 2023 at 08:00#8363090 likes
I didn't claim that. Only thing I did was question the black and white "no-brainer" distinction you set up between doing something about climate change and doing nothing about is. Solving this problem will be at least a balancing act between various issues, with a lot of trade-offs in all directions... that is all.
Please don't twist my words.
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 08, 2023 at 08:24#8363110 likes
It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.
Yeah maybe this is it. I don't see the world like this. I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. That is the undercurrent force that constraints how far you can take political action in any given direction. Money probably can shift policies some degrees in other directions, but I don't think it is ultimately the driver behind all of this.
The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.
I haven't read the book... so I can't judge that. But as follows from what I said above, I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem.
As has become blatantly obvious here in Europe, with the energy crisis that started before the Ukraine war, people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. It's not that some polticians didn't want to take measures to try and solve it, it's that they would loose the following elections if any of their measures would lead to even modest increases in energy-prices.
I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed.
I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture.
It comes down to a different analysis of power. Yes, political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion— especially in a relatively free country like the US. But what influences public opinion?
Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this.
I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem.
I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.
Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
Wikipedia the “investment theory of party competition.” Or see Tom Ferguson’s book “the golden rule.” When huge majorities of the public want something, it doesn’t matter. What actually happens in terms of policy aligns with what the wealthiest people want.
I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed.
The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.
It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 08, 2023 at 15:00#8363640 likes
I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.
Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. This is a technical issue that is hard argue either way, I do realise that... but it is the point where this argument hinges on.
People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes.
You point to other countries that have sensible policies in place. I say these countries are some of the most wealthy in the world, and have exported most of their energy intensive industry to China as part of a globalised economy. That is largely the green-washing game Europe has been playing BTW, relocating its production capacity somewhere else, and importing the products where they are still made with a lot of carbon emissions. It looks good if you stop at the border, but climate change doesn't care where carbon gets emitted of course.
Mikie:Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches.
False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US.
It not that black and white, but I do think there is something to it... And Europe will become largely economically irrelevant shortly. It is in a very precarius situation at the moment, thanks to, in no small part, the energywende. Let's hope we get bailed out by a mild winter again like last year!
The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.
It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.
Sure, I don't want to absolve them of blame. They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. The problem isn't necessarily solved either in countries where these industries play little to no role .
Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change.
EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.
Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.
But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.
People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes.
I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.
Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.
You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.
People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.
Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie
What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches.
It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:
They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda.
Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.
Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?
Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change.
EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.
Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.
But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.
People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes.
I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the C evidence became undeniable.
Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.
You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.
People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.
Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie
What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches.
It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:
They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda.
Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.
Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?
I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.
The effect of this political decision was that many people started vaping. Even people who had never smoked. Solving one problem caused another problem which some people think is as bad or worse.
Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.
But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk.
To answer the point that sometimes we make things worse when we're trying to make improvements, all you have to say is: "Yes, we should really be cognizant of that. Good point."
No personal attacks necessary. :grin: :up:
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 09, 2023 at 00:13#8364540 likes
Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.
Vaping is largely about nicotine addiction. The same as cigarettes and tobacco. You could call it the nicotine industry. Nice flavors are added to entice young people into getting hooked. It is now the "cool" thing to do, like cigarette smoking used to be. How is this totally different?
Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it.
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree yeah, you dummy. What is your problem: trying to have a reasonable conversation on a philosophy forum. Jeesh...maybe you should find some children if you're trying to have a real philosophical discussion...but not here . . . Isnt that right @Mikie. :grin: :wink: :grin: :wink:
Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?
As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. People in the west usually assume that the west is correct, and that China is wrong. But what if they have it the wrong way around. China is correct and the west is wrong?
The obvious difference between the west and China is that the west is mostly democratic, but China is not. Politicians in the west must convince the public in their country to vote for them. They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green policies is large enough or loud enough then western countries will enact green policies even if they will damage the economy.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil (pun intended). :grin:
flannel jesusSeptember 09, 2023 at 10:45#8365220 likes
They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green polices
I feel like there's some deep irony in this. Anybody else notice that?
"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 09, 2023 at 12:36#8365270 likes
"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that.
"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles
You said. "presumably, green policies are in fact better for that". Some green policies have negative effects. Many people think that "green" means the same thing as "good". This is not necessarily true. Is it "good" to have higher energy prices (often the result of "going green").
flannel jesusSeptember 09, 2023 at 12:43#8365280 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree if "world" means the literal planet, then I see how higher energy prices might be good for the literal planet, sure
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 09, 2023 at 13:46#8365330 likes
if "world" means the literal planet, then I see how higher energy prices might be good for the literal planet, sure
I was using the word "world" to mean both the literal planet AND everything else associated with the planet. Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective.
Your statement could be true if "world" meant just the literal planet.
Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective.
Spoken like a true conservative (in the best sense of the word). But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. ..
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 09, 2023 at 15:18#8365470 likes
Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests.
I just want to thank you for this comment. What with the beef industry giving out grants to California universities, the global oil and gas interests paying for US congressmen, and Monsanto funding the campaigns of local water quality checkers (this is a real thing, btw), it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever.
And also thank god for climate change click bait that makes me more aware of the price of that bubble couch I googled one time.
EcharmionSeptember 09, 2023 at 17:58#8365920 likes
As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy.
Isn't that about 80% of the discussion around climate change policy? Arguing about whether, and how much it will damage the economy, and whether it's worth it?
"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles
Of course the reality is that most people care much more about themselves and their immediate community than about the net benefit of the policies they support for people in distant lands with a different skin color and a widely different reality.
And this unfortunately means that there is very little actual good faith discussion on the quality of climate change policy. It gets drowned out by the very loud discussion on whether climate change is a globalist conspiracy. And the rest is mostly invented reasons like the poor children mining lithium as a smoke screen for the actual reason: That very few people like to accept painful cuts to their standard of living.
The brutal truth is that the current standard of living of developed countries is not sustainable given current technology.
But you win no elections by pointing that out, so we get a charade of feel-good policies, many of which are either stupid and inefficient or stupid and harmful, because the actual solution - cutting the per-capita energy consumption - is unpopular.
And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist). Because the people with high birth rates use up so little energy that they're not currently much of a concern from the perspective of climate change.
I'm not seeing any indication that we're capable to succeed at the almost miraculous task of switching out energy supply in at most a few decades without cuts and economic dislocation.
Certainly the way we've handled the problem so far fails to inspire much confidence.
Well it has to be done. It either will or won’t. I don’t see the point of repeating over and over that this is a hard task.
Yes, we’re all in agreement: it’s very hard. We may not have enough time. We may never have the political will. There may not be the technological breakthroughs we need. And so forth.
Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die?
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 09, 2023 at 20:56#8366130 likes
But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. ..
Yes, being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. But it is often different people who pay the price. A person who is old has a different perspective on global-warming/climate-change to somebody who is young.
To put things crudely, using your analogy, old people may be dead when the shit hits the fan. I know that this sounds selfish, but most people are selfish. You can probably blame evolution. :grin:
And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist).
The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse.
EcharmionSeptember 09, 2023 at 21:55#8366200 likes
The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse.
Yeah it's going to make problems worse, but not by as much as a casual scaling up would suggest.
The problem is not numbers, but resource use. A few billion poor people do not emit that much extra carbon dioxide. The real problem is the lifestyle of the rich people which many people who are not yet part of the rich people (i.e. the global middle class) wants to emulate. That is the emissions problem we need to adress.
And that's where it ties in with economic fears and the notion that global competition makes climate change policy undesirable. What we need to do is redefine our economic goals, away from high energy use. Almost noone is even attempting this, and the few that are often come from extreme positions which does not add to their appeal. But energy use is ultimately what it comes down to: We need to have a world where the rich people don't use (as much) more energy than what can be sustained.
Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die?
What I wanted to point out specifically is that a lot of the debate around climate change (once it is accepted that it's real and it is a problem) just fails to acknowledge the central notions that a) it's about global equity and b) if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central.
The kind of massive and rapid change we need would involve a level of public mobilisation that's akin to a war footing. But no-one, including the green parties, even attempts to tackle the problem at that scale.
And most of the discussion about the relative efficacy of different policies also fails to take the scale into account. Like the common argument that "well what's the point if we use less resources, someone else will use them instead". As if we'd not be majorly redisigning the entire global economy while doing it.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 09, 2023 at 23:17#8366270 likes
As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy.
The West is stupid regardless.
It goes deeper than kneecapping the economy and reducing the general standard of living for all but the super wealthy. The west is opening the door for China to become the global hegemon. And it is unlikely that the imperial agenda that China would impose upon the west would be at all concerned with environmental sustainability. We all know China would devour the entire west for the benefit of ccp.
It is a fact that the "climate crisis" is inevitable as long as China does not get on board with the green agenda.
If the west did not have its head up its ass, its strategy would be to pause on the green agenda and exert what imperial power it has left to gain enough leverage so that it could impose a mandatory green policy on China (as well as other major perpetrators). Then once that's done go full throttle on its own greenwork.
If only it were that easy.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 09, 2023 at 23:30#8366290 likes
I just want to thank you for this comment. . .it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever.
if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central.
Reducing the fossil fuel energy consumption, yes. But most of that can be replaced with greener technology. Electricity, transportation, etc. Agriculture and heavy industry is harder— but our governments can subsidize the transition.
Some people believe that the government can spend any amount of money without making anybody worse off. The reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. For example:
- collecting more taxes
- making budget cuts elsewhere
- causing inflation by printing money
Popular adage:There is no such thing as a free lunch
If It Doesn't Come Naturally, Leave It - Al Stewart:Well nothing that's real is ever for free
And you just have to pay for it sometime
Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests.
Do you really now?
unenlightenedSeptember 10, 2023 at 12:30#8367020 likes
China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. The West is just beginning its green revolution. Just to point out - there is no shortage of energy. The problems of climate change are caused by an excess of energy. There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy. Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing.
There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy.
There is plenty of available energy if you are willing to use coal, oil, and natural gas. Energy poverty can occur if people can't afford the cost of energy. "Going green" usually increases the real cost of energy to the consumer.
unenlightenedSeptember 10, 2023 at 14:39#8367160 likes
... all of the many current threats to man's survival are traceable to three root causes:
• technological progress
• population increase
• certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of Occidental
culture. Our "values" are wrong.
We believe that all three of these fundamental factors are necessary conditions for the destruction of our world. In other words, we optimistically believe that the correction of any one of them would save us.
Gregory Bateson, Roots of Ecological Crisis. 1970
I'm planning fairly soon on re-reading Steps to an Ecology of Mind and starting a thread if anyone is interested. It may be of interest to know that the politico-socio-psychological aspects of environmentalism have been much discussed since the early 70's and earlier. Obviously some aspects of the text will be out of date, but the methodology and analytical insights should stand up better, and repay careful consideration.
unenlightenedSeptember 10, 2023 at 14:50#8367190 likes
Answer your own stupid questions in reference to your own ignorant pontifications.
The energy of the sun falls upon the earth and is sufficient to the life thereon, to the extent that excess energy has been stored by life-processes over geological time. Judged by the standard of the energy gradient and temperature range needed for life, there is a shortage of energy at the poles. So the fuck what?
China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. . .Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing.
Yes, and then everything will be perfect with rainbows and bubblegum and little fuzzy bunny wabbits.
How naive can you be? There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. And it would take the greatest of fools to believe that once China has attained global hegemony through its industrialization (while the west cripples its own energy infrastructure with green technology that is too worthless to steal), that it would sabatoge its own supremacy by reversing course into green policies.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 10, 2023 at 19:07#8367790 likes
I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea.
You should have led with it being Asimovian. And I didn't know we would have parks and surface access.
In that case I'm more open to it. But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 10, 2023 at 19:30#8367870 likes
But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
— Merkwurdichliebe
Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city?
Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city?
I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists? I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 10, 2023 at 19:59#8368060 likes
Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control.
I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness.
I think the powers that be, which benefit from a totalitarian underground city, would never leave the surface alone and allow it to thrive. These are the most boring types, those who wish to impose their boring misery on others.
This is starting to feel allegorical.
There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating.
unenlightenedSeptember 10, 2023 at 20:23#8368090 likes
There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability.
It doesn't require evidence. At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. But when 90% have drowned, starved, or died in migratory conflicts, minds will change. There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies. Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid.
Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control.
They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time.
Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly.
There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid.
I never meant to insinuate that China is stupid. On the contrary, China knows exaclty what it is doing, and one of those things is to exploit the West as it sits there neurotically with its thumb up its butt.
One example is its securing of rare resources that the West has become increasingly dependent on. And even if they are attempting to develop green technologies, they are too smart to implement it on a large scale until it has been proven to outperform the currently operating energy infrastructure.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 10, 2023 at 20:54#8368140 likes
They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time.
I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary.
Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly.
These uncowardly lions would be labeled terrorists no doubt.
I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary.
EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.
Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.
But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.
I don't think EROI is getting much better with renewables, there's a cap to how much they can improve in effeciency because of the underlying physics of those technologies.
Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too. That is the flip side of progress/growth, it allways seems to involve externalising costs. You seem to think we can have both, even though historically there's almost a one to one relation between growth and damage to the enviroment. There's no evidence that decoupling those two is possible in practice.
Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.
This isn't about blame. I think ultimately all of this is more an unfortunate accident of history/evolution. We need food, shelter, social status etc etc, and have had to labour continuously to provide those things. Of course we are going to use free energy that makes things easier.... We aren't really equipped to deal with all this complexity and long term planning and allways have more or less made stuff up as we go.
You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.
People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.
People are against having to pay a large portion of their hard earned money to pay for basics like energy. This is pretty obvious, and shouldn't need much defence.
And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much. Most of so called "subsidizing" the IMF reported on have been governement contributions to the energy bills of the poor, and counting not payed for externalities as "subsidies". Direct subsidies have been only a very small portion of that.
Governments have unprecedented debt already. Sure you could say why not pile on some more, but then you're only kicking the can ahead of you some more... someone will have to pay for it eventually.
Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.
We shall see. These kind of things play out over decades. If Germany's economy tanks, and it drags Europe with it, or if it starts its coal plants again because ernergy price get to high otherwise... I wouldn't call that a succes.
Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.
Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?
I’d also Google Lee Raymond.
Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies. The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction... Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the roof of the White house because he was scared of running out of energy in the wake of the oil crisis. He was an ideological child of the whole limits to growth movement that started in the early seventies.
And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much.
Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.
So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke.
Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too.
Another canard.
Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.
Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies.
So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. His behavior wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?
Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that the industry funded — which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.
But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc…
The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction
:ok:
Takes real effort to avoid so much contrary evidence.
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 11, 2023 at 17:06#8369580 likes
Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.
So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke.
Not as much as some want us to believe was my point. The 7 trillion from the IMF certainly wasn't a very fair estimate, and that's the study that blindly get parrotted everywhere.
Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.
Compare to fossil fuels and there’s no contest.
If you only look at carbon emissions sure... but if you look at land use, which is the main cause of bio-diversity loss, it isn't great, certainly not if we would be serious about scaling up renewables to replace all fossil fuels. Mining for all the resources to build them is devastating too. And then we haven't factored in all the waste we will have to deal with once we need to replace them in 20 years.
It’s not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice, and one made because of greed. Capitalism isn’t a natural law.
I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment.
Right— so let’s lay down and die. Let’s let the world burn because it’s not economically viable to save it.
Funny how the “debt” gets brought up very selectively.
If we can spend $1 trillion a year on the military, we can spend that on saving the planet.
No, I would choose saving the biosphere over the economy in a heartbeat. But it's not up to me, it doesn't matter what I want if there isn't enough political support for it. I just can't see it happening, because I don't think we wouldn't have much of an economy left if we were to include all externalities. I'm talking mostly discriptive here, or I try to at least.
So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. That wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?
Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that this industry funded. Which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.
But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc…
I did google him, and sure he seem like a greedy bastard alright. I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things. How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission? Europe did a little bit better maybe, but nowhere near enough to seriously stop climate change. Climate change denial hasn't really been a thing in Europe, and yet here we are 30 years further with little to show for. At some point one has to look a little deeper than evil greedy dude destroying the world for profit I would think.
Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding.
But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.
It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.
I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment.
So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.
China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.
The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization.
I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things.
Then you’re really not paying attention.
If you want to believe it’s all accidental or inevitable somehow, that’s fine— seems better than believing in conspiracy theories. Until you recognize that they’re not really conspiracy theories, of course.
How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission?
The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.
And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.
There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.
I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious.
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 12, 2023 at 08:47#8370400 likes
Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding.
The point is that it is not as black and white as a lot of you seem to be making it out to be. Or it only gets looked at on this binary carbon emissions axis.... If you take different aspects into consideration, like yes the economy, or other types of ecological damages, than it's a lot more nuanced.
But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.
It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.
I don’t share that sentiment.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Resources, money, time etc etc are limited. If we want to figure out how to best deal with the problems we have, we'd better find out what all the different costs are of the available options.
So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.
China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.
The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization.
The reason all of them carbonized was industrialisation.
The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.
And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.
There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.
I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious.
You really believe that there no more debate to be had about how we are going to solve this? That seems rather close-minded. I feel like we only have scratched the surface of how we are going to balance different issues.... In any case, I don't think there is one kind of solution, it will also greatly depend on the situation of your country.
[Slight quibble]. It started really with the beginning of the British Empire. Slave produced cotton, and sugar both subsidised and incentivised mass production, transport etc. Slate from Welsh quarries roofed the houses of plantation owners, and the Bethesda quarry owner, for example, was also a plantation owner. And the quarry was an early adopter of a railway to transport slate to the coast for shipment. A similar pattern can be found with the cotton mills of Lancashire, etc.
In particular, there was a great hunger in Africa for iron, which was hard won by the technology available to them, but which Britain had developed with the exploitation of coal. Slaves were bought, first for iron, and later for guns. The triangular trade - iron from Britain to West Africa, Slaves to the Americas and the West Indies, sugar, cotton and rum back to Britain is what made a small country one of the wealthiest, and most powerful, and drove the industrial revolution.
(Racism is as essential to capitalism as sexism is to patriarchy.)
[/slight quibble].
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 13, 2023 at 09:32#8372210 likes
Plenty. I’ve seen none from you whatsoever other than “I doubt it can be done.
I doubt it can be done without certain consequences...
You haven't seen them because we haven't talked about that specifically.
Most of these 81 pages have been about rebuking climate change denial, which is a clear cut matter. That doesn't mean there isn't a real discussion to be had about how we are going to solve it.
And yes, I'm still in the process of making up my mind, I don't see how one can be so certain about something with this many moving parts.
I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There's another option, though. If by "we" you mean the human race, it's most likely going to be fine. Climate volatility may take out the present world order. I think that's likely. But world orders come and go. We'll be back a few thousand years from now, and probably more capable than ever.
If by "we" you mean the present generation, again, we'll probably be fine. Our knowledge puts us in a position to know that we're saying goodbye to a world, while it's still here. This vibe, which dwells on the fragility of life, is like this:
Private investment in clean energy projects like solar panels, hydrogen power and electric vehicles surged after President Biden signed an expansive climate bill into law last year, a development that shows how tax incentives and federal subsidies have helped reshape some consumer and corporate spending in the United States.
New data being released on Wednesday suggest the climate law and other parts of Mr. Biden’s economic agenda have helped speed the development of automotive supply chains in the American Southwest, buttressing traditional auto manufacturing centers in the industrial Midwest and the Southeast. The 2022 law, which passed with only Democratic support, aided factory investment in conservative bastions like Tennessee and the swing states of Michigan and Nevada. The law also helped underwrite a spending spree on electric cars and home solar panels in California, Arizona and Florida.
The data show that in the year since the climate law passed, spending on clean-energy technologies accounted for 4 percent of the nation’s total investment in structures, equipment and durable consumer goods — more than double the share from four years ago.
The law so far has failed to supercharge a key industry in the transition from fossil fuels that Mr. Biden is trying to accelerate: wind power. Domestic investment in wind production declined over the past year, despite the climate law’s hefty incentives for producers. And so far the law has not changed the trajectory of consumer spending on some energy-saving technologies like highly efficient heat pumps.
Reply to frank Nothing of the sort. I just think most of your posts in this thread are vapid and devoid of any semblance of a moral backbone. I've yet to discover a substantive post or anything respectable in this thread from you.
And I don't believe capitalism is ultimately unsustainable. It is the only system we know of that is capable of producing novelty and innovating technologies that might be able to counteract the climate crisis. We can see how communism in ussr failed by stagnating in all production and innovation, and ccp was forced to betray its marxist principles by adopting Dengism in order to compete on the global stage. The only way Communism could only succeed in creating a sustainable world be by regressing civilization back into the stone age.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
Well I'm single handedly changing the climate so it's similar to what they have on Venus, so taking a little flak is the least I can do.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 13, 2023 at 19:48#8373040 likes
It is the only system we know of that is capable of producing novelty and innovating technologies that might be able to counteract the climate crisis. We can see how communism in ussr failed by stagnating in all production and innovation
:rofl:
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 13, 2023 at 22:29#8373540 likes
I didn't see a thread yet, so I figured it's worth creating one.
Being in the middle of crushing heat waves, draughts, and floods all at the same time here in 2021, even those climate "skeptics" are saying we should probably do something -- just in case all the world's climatologists are correct.
[1&2]Is it already too late?
[1&2]If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?
[3]If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it?
[6]Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our time?
I didn't realize you started this thread. :up: How long has it been since your original questions have been directly addressed? 2 years? Allow me.
1&2: I am optimistic, so... no. Human ingenuity has a solid historic record of creating solutions to its problems. There is no historical data on the degeneration of past civilizations, so we have zero reference on whether or not we have reached the tipping point. In fact, when we look at a more recent potentially world ending phenomena, nuclear warfare, humanity's solution has worked quite successfully so far. Because cooperation amongst competing powers in that case would seem much less likely than eventual cooperation in the case of environmental protection, there is even more reason to be optimistic.
3: it is all about cooperation that averages out into a better way of life for all. It starts with an open discourse about solutions that do not encroach on people's ways of life (except, perhaps, for the mega wealthy). The more that sustainability goals are perceived to diminish the quality of life for the average working man, the more incentive for resistance to sustainability goals.
6: yes. I guarantee you that Christians and Muslims alike are more concerned with eschatologicsl considerations of the human soul. And me. I still hold nuclear warfare to be a bigger issue. I also consider Covid a bigger issue, not the disease, but humanity's pathetic and cowardly response to it (such a species deserves to be wiped out by a climate apocalypse).
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 00:05#8373850 likes
I assume you'll say Paul Hawken or something like that, and then point out that he's a capitalist, etc. etc.
I'd point to people like Bill McKibben, Rachel Carson, etc. But you're asking for a reason, so let's not pretend you're interested in any answers. Just make your point.
In the US, it's George Vanderbilt. He started the world's first forestry school intended to teach loggers how to harvest wood sustainably. But he brought some guy from Germany over to teach. I guess it must have started there originally.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 00:45#8373970 likes
Why then do you always seem to present yourself as an extreme right wing nut job? Is it just performance?
There are a few answers.
In a strong sense, it is performance, but that is not all due to my antics, there is an inherent art to philosophy that requires a certain quality of performance.
I have a rebellious philosophical nature, and I am compelled to reject whatever I perceive as status quo (for good or bad), and, as of late (as i perceive), many leftist policies have taken on the lame stench of the status quo.
Lastly, perhaps you have drifted so far to the left that you have been radicalized to the point that almost everything appears right-leaning to you. Perhaps not, i don't know you personally. No insult intended here.
...But you're asking for a reason, so let's not pretend you're interested in any answers. Just make your point.
Actually, the answers are exactly what I wanted. I actually haven't heard of any of the people you mentioned (researching them now).
But I was hoping amongst that listing you had mentioned the great Herbert Marcuse.
From the little I've gathered, Marcuse was a major influence on Paul Hawken. And regarding Marcuse, I heavily oppose many of the tenets that factor into his ideas on sustainability. However, I could envision a post-Marcusian version of sustainability that would lend to less radically divisive and tyrannical solutions.
Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point.
Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. And my only point was to find out who you factored as key pioneers on the notion of sustainability.
But since you insist on some deeper point, I will oblige. It would seem to me, that if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability", yet that same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, it would be extremely reasonable to assume that same person has been brainwashed by popular media. Such a person might even seek out and consume studies and statistics that are strategically dispersed by the perpetrators of the official narrative in order to reinforce the narrative in his closed mind. And that would mean that the programming has taken hold.
The question I am left asking is: why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 02:33#8374210 likes
In the US, it's George Vanderbilt. He started the world's first forestry school intended to teach loggers how to harvest wood sustainably. But he brought some guy from Germany over to teach. I guess it must have started there originally.
I looked him up. He was before the time of Marcuse. Marcuse had accute ideas on sustainability. Vanderbilt seems to be more about classic environmental protection.
The main difference, beyond their respective occupations, is that Vanderbilt was on a personal quest and was not trying to impose his ethic on all society. Whereas markuse was prescribing his "new sensibilities" as a society wide solution to what he imagined (and greatly exagerated) to be an environmental crisis.
Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time.
Central theory of sustainability? What are you referring to? I’ve read Marcuse— I guess I missed this. But in any case, seems far fetched.
why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy.
First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.
Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science?
There are plenty of solutions. We’ve barely scratched the surface of that discussion on this thread.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 03:09#8374310 likes
Not as far fetched as you think. Here are some quotes:
"The destruction of nature is not an accidental by-product of the capitalist mode of production; it is essential to its functioning. The capitalist economy is based on the endless accumulation of capital, and this requires the endless exploitation of both human and natural resources. The more nature is exploited, the more it is destroyed." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)
"The environmental crisis is linked to other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism. For example, the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on poor and minority communities is a form of environmental racism." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)
"A sustainable society is one that is based on non-violence and solidarity. This means that it would be a society that respects the rights of all beings, human and non-human, and that works to create a just and equitable world." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)
"We need to develop a new sensibility, one that is more in tune with nature and less materialistic. This means that we need to learn to appreciate the beauty of nature and to value it for its own sake, not just for its usefulness to us." (From One-Dimensional Man, 1964)
"The struggle for a sustainable society is a political struggle, a struggle against the dominant ideology of consumerism and the endless accumulation of capital. It is a struggle for a new way of life, a way of life that is based on non-violence, solidarity, and respect for nature." (From Ecology and Revolution, 1970)
I challenge you to explain to @Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example.
First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.
Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science?
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but fortunately, and unlike @frank, I truly possess the payload to singlehand destroy, not only the environment, but the entire universe.
It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse. And it also means that it is likely that there is an agenda with inflated statistics, which very few people benefit from, that pushes the official narrative on the rabble and unsuspecting suckers.
I challenge you to explain to Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example.
What “official climate crisis narrative”? The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
That being said— Marcuse is right. But he wasn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t presenting evidence of global warming or offering concrete solutions. I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition.
I’m still not really seeing the point. Why is Marcuse “central” to anything in the environmental movement — especially climate change? Rachel Carson, Bill Mckibben, James Hanson, Syukuro Manabe— all far more relevant in this respect.
Unless one is trying to link climate science to “Marxism” somehow. Which is silly.
Did you hear about the science, or do it yourself. Please tell me you did it yourself :pray:
Done what myself? Read a graph?
Yes, I talk to climate scientists and read published articles on climate change. I have some background in it— but I’m not involved in gathering ice core samples if that’s what you mean.
It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse.
What “official narrative,” exactly? You keep mentioning this.
Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like common sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
But I see where this is going.
True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 03:52#8374340 likes
The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
That's the narrative im fishing for
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 03:55#8374370 likes
I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition.
Sounds reasonable at face value. Let's put that in the bin of relevance
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 04:00#8374400 likes
Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
Common sense is easy to instill into the "truly uncritical" mind.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 04:02#8374420 likes
Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
Typical submittal tactic.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 04:03#8374430 likes
True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome.
The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
— Mikie
That's the narrative im fishing for
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
I suppose evolution, electromagnetism, and gravity can be described as “narratives” too, eh?
Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like coming sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this
Do you realize that the science just happened, coincidentally to confirm an egregious amount of Marcuse's speculations. If he naturslly intuited this incontrovertible fact from pure anecdotal study and observation, it would make him greater than Jesus and Mao having generous butt sex
What is your core criticism countering my claim that Marcuse's philosophy underlies the official climate crisis narrative?
The end-of-the-world narrative is an Indo-European motif. The climate crisis is Armageddon. Capitalism is the Antichrist. I'm talking about the emotional form of it, not the scientific part.
The US and Russia have this oddity in common: particularly potent forms of the Armageddon myth were social drivers in each culture. The idea of global nuclear war emerged from a conflict between entities who were both already steeped in dreams of the end of the world.
That doesn't mean the end isn't really near. In fact the world is ending all the time. And that's what it's really about: time.
Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? Assuming it's not false reporting, a majority of scientists state there's a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis looming or already there. Obviously, from a purely logical standpoint I can't claim "the climate crisis is happening because almost all scientists say so" but heuristically that's how we tend to have to operate. And to an important extent the IPCC reports do try to make the science understandable to laymen, if you've read it.
So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove. The bigger problem is the moral apathy and cynicism of some posters - which I feel regulary but choose to ignore because I owe that to future generations. Even if we can't stop it, mitigating it will go a long way.
Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time.
The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness.
ChatteringMonkeySeptember 14, 2023 at 09:43#8374770 likes
I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You make a choice to stick your head in the ground?
It obviously does matter what the likelyhood of succeeding is. Suppose we have a very small chance of succeeding to stay below a certain limit of climate change, than I think it would make sense to allocate a lot more money to resilience measures.
I feel like you are overselling all these psychological effects. That is probably our main point of disagreement. I think it's better to look at our situation as it is, and figure out what to do from there. A failure to aknowledge that is far more dangerous than anything like a self-fulfilling profecy it seems to me.
The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness.
Actually, I brought up fusion, a global government, a new global religion, and other ideas. What did you contribute other than being a gnat in my face?
Reply to frank As I said, you just come up with shit so you feel good about yourself doing fuck all. It's the same why oil companies are so keen on wanting carbon capture work but of course have governments pay for it. That way they don't have to stop what they're doing. You want a magic bullet (fusion) so you don't have to do shit, a government to do shit for you, a religion to convince others to do what you won't do out of free will (I guess; I haven't exactly read the hair-brained idea of convincing 8 billion people to change religion but hey, very unhelpful bullshit as usual) and every other thing you mention as a reason not to do anything.
The technology is already there, the awareness is there but hey, let's just keep doing what we're doing. What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing.
You want a magic bullet (fusion) so you don't have to do shit, a government to do shit for you, a religion to convince others to do what you won't do out of free will
I've long believed fission and fusion will be a significant part of addressing climate change. The challenge today is that coal is cheapest way to beef up a power grid, which is why China is building two coal driven power plants per week this year.
You can force nuclear power with laws, as is happening in the US. A fission plant is being built near me, actually. But laws come and go. Supply and demand will have a bigger impact over time. Fusion would reduce the demand for coal, natural gas, and petroleum without the environmental impact fission has.
What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing.
That's great. I also live a low consumption life. One of the systemic problems people overlook is the way we use plastic. Organisms that eat plastic have evolved. That means going forward, that plastic waste will contribute to greenhouse gases. So what's the alternative? I mainly think about that with regard to medical equipment which is pervasively made of disposable plastic for infection control reasons. We could transition back to glass, but guess what power source drives most glass production? Natural gas.
So solar panels are a great idea. They're subsidized by my state. But you can't make glass with a solar panel. Globally, we should be working to transition to fission and fusion. That would actually do something about the problem.
Let's just assume there's competing narratives. How do you tell which one to subscribe to? Assuming it's not false reporting, a majority of scientists state there's a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis looming or already there. Obviously, from a purely logical standpoint I can't claim "the climate crisis is happening because almost all scientists say so" but heuristically that's how we tend to have to operate. And to an important extent the IPCC reports do try to make the science understandable to laymen, if you've read it.
So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove.
Suspend judgment, let it play out and observe. In the midst of chaos, it is prudent to remain calm, panic will only serve to exacerbate the chaos.
One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. Now that the official narrative has become scientific dogma, the entire institution works toward advancing it, and there is even less incentive for scientist to investigate anything that might contradict the official narrative.
Another thing that doesn't sit well with me is that those pushing the official climate crisis narrative would also agree that science (the very same science that they use to support the official narrative) is an oppressive institution that has grown directly out of the patriarchy and white imperialism. In that context, how can I possibly be expected to put my faith in such a tyrannical and fascist charade? Or does it just happen to be the greatest coincidence ever, and climate change science just happens to be the only field in that entire institution that is not racist and sexist?
The end-of-the-world narrative is an Indo-European motif. The climate crisis is Armageddon. Capitalism is the Antichrist. I'm talking about the emotional form of it, not the scientific part.
That doesn't mean the end isn't really near. In fact the world is ending all the time. And that's what it's really about: time.
Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time.
That makes sense. The human lifespan is less than 100 years. And within that time everyone has plenty of problems to deal with on a daily basis, which makes it hard to justify the investment of limited time and energy on a problem that is predicted (rightly or wrongly) to arise after you are dead.
One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support for the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. [...]
Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions".
Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess.
Reply to Benkei also mentioned biodiversity impairment, which is related — humans all over the place, population growth, deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, extinctions, renewability, ...
That makes sense. The human lifespan is less than 100 years. And within that time everyone has plenty of problems to deal with on a daily basis, which makes it hard to justify the investment of limited time and energy on a problem that is predicted (rightly or wrongly) to arise after you are dead.
Exactly. Imagine that we manage to end fossil fuel use. In a thousand years humans have forgotten that we did that and they go back to using coal and petroleum. Transmitting an imperative to people a thousand years in the future is just beyond anything we've ever done.
If you take a class in global warming at a university, they go over this. It's part of comprehending the true dimensions of the problem.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 21:22#8376300 likes
Transmitting an imperative to people a thousand years in the future is just beyond anything we've ever done.
Is that possible in the slightest. Parents can barely impart their ethics to their children. Maybe if time travel were invented. But that would mean it has already been invented.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 21:25#8376320 likes
This analysis holds up. Life has evolved over billions of years. Evolution isn’t a fact— it’s an official narrative. Scientists are forced into conforming.
This way we don’t have to learn anything or understand the subject. Just use this analysis and feel special/sound super smart.
Is that possible in the slightest. Parents can barely impart their ethics to their children. Maybe if time travel were invented. But that would mean it has already been invented.
The human race could split it two. One branch lives underground and stays technologically and intellectually sophisticated. The other branch lives on the surface and has reverted to stone age life. The people who live underground have a static social order and they routinely blitz the surface dwellers so they can never advance and start doing crazy stuff like burning coal. This goes on for thousands of years until Yellowstone blows up and initiates the Age of Insects where ant supercolonies develop intellectual sophistication and pizza that isn't fattening.
Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions".
Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. And the human urge to go along with the popular trend is quite strong, especially when doing so would help in furthering one's career. Hence, to think that scientists at large would orient their scientific labor in support of an official narrative is not at all unreasonable to consider.
Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess.
Speaking of trends, have you ever noticed how climate change is very often conveyed in outrageous alarmist language by those who have bought into the official narrative.
The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc.
Very Marcusian languange, by the way.
I suppose, when you dig deep enough, it is all a "conspiracy'esque game". In my case, my conspiracy theory is called skepticism, and its central axiom is: if it looks like bullshit, talks like bullshit, walks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it is most likely bullshit.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 22:49#8376490 likes
The people who live underground have a static social order and they routinely blitz the surface dwellers so they can never advance and start doing crazy stuff like burning coal. This goes on for thousands of years until Yellowstone blows up and initiates the Age of Insects where ant supercolonies develop intellectual sophistication and pizza that isn't fattening.
if it looks like bullshit, talks like bullshit, walks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it is most likely bullshit.
The most believable bullshit always has a kernel of truth. It is propaganda 101. And anytime i see alarmist bullshit being utilized to centralize power and impose greater control over the multitudes, i get real suspicious.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 22:51#8376500 likes
This analysis holds up. Life has evolved over billions of years. Evolution isn’t a fact— it’s an official narrative. Scientists are forced into conforming.
Evolutionist aren't attempting to radically transform all society based on some trumped up, overblown crisis.
The most believable bullshit always has a kernel of truth. It is propaganda 101. And anytime i see alarmist bullshit being utilized to centralize power and impose greater control over the multitudes, i get real suspicious.
Insect supercolonies don't have this problem. It's why they end up taking over the world.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 22:55#8376520 likes
Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. And the human urge to go along with the popular trend is quite strong, especially when doing so would help in furthering one's career. Hence, to think that scientists at large would orient their scientific labor in support of an official narrative is not at all unreasonable to consider.
Not ureasonable I suppose, for someone with a lack of experience with science and scientists. However, regardless of how reasonably understood it might be, that you hold that view (being as ignorant as you demonstrate yourself to be) ignorant conspiracy theory rationalization is what it is.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 23:56#8376610 likes
Not ureasonable I suppose for someone with a lack of experience with science and scientists. However, regardless of how reasonably understood it might be that you hold that view (being as ignorant as you demonstrate yourself to be) ignorant conspiracy theory rationalization is what it is.
And that's another point of suspicion. How desperate and juvenile climate crisis activists become in the face of opposition to their dogmatism. There is a definite religious zealotry to it all. Makes me all the more justified in rejecting it.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 14, 2023 at 23:59#8376620 likes
One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support for the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. [...]
Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess.
Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions".
In my case, my conspiracy theory is called skepticism
There are also round-Earth skeptics, E=mc² skeptics, germ skeptics, Moon landing skeptics, biological evolution skeptics, you name it. (skepticism ? denial ? skepticism ? post-truth)
Let climate deniers be climate deniers. The religion belongs to them. The analysis is easy, and requires nothing but conspiracies and cheap skepticism. This way they don’t have to bother listening to people who spend their lives to the subject — or really learn anything at all. Because that requires effort. Creationists are on the same level— same arguments, in fact.
It’s also hilarious watching them devolve into blithering imbeciles when their feeble accusations are put to the most mild scrutiny.
I think the best thing to do from this point on is ignore them…or respond with satire (which they won’t notice). You do you, of course.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
There's a scene in the movie 200 that comes to mind with regard to climate change narratives. It's about Xerxes, who is about 20 feet tall for some reason. Did you see it?
Climate is a word that plays a part in language games, but it would be a mistake to think it has a foundation beyond that. That's just rank foundationalism.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 15, 2023 at 14:54#8377910 likes
Reply to Mikie you are easily amused. And wholy converted. I wish I was as susceptible to gullibility
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 15, 2023 at 15:01#8377940 likes
Climate is a word that plays a part in language games, but it would be a mistake to think it has a foundation beyond that. That's just rank foundationalism.
:lol:
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 15, 2023 at 15:03#8377960 likes
Climate is a word that plays a part in language games, but it would be a mistake to think it has a foundation beyond that. That's just rank foundationalism.
Climate is a logocentric tool of oppression created by the white colonialist patriarchy!
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
I don't think the point of critical race theory is that the entire universe is racist. It's just that our society didn't pop out of an egg yesterday. We have a legacy of racism. There are ways that racism was incorporated into the world in the past. Those worldly things still exist, like the projects put black people into a sink hole and forces of rehabilitation wax and wane.
Besides, the new Republicans are batshit. They'll gladly load racism into their basket along with refusing to accept that there is any such thing as a climate.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 15, 2023 at 19:58#8378770 likes
They'll gladly load racism into their basket along with refusing to accept that there is any such thing as a climate.
Are racism and climate crisis completely interdependent? Does acceptance of one necessitate acceptance of the other? If that is the case, how do we reconcile the fact that science is part of a legacy of racism that is assumed to simultaneously be cabable of solving the problems of the modern world (such as racism and climate change)?
I'm astounded at how these climate crisis radicals refuse to acknowledge how essentially racist and sexist they actually are.
The term "climate justice" is used a lot by people who are worried about the climate crisis. Can anybody please explain to me what "climate justice" is?
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 16, 2023 at 03:04#8379300 likes
The term "climate justice" is used a lot by people who are worried about the climate crisis. Can anybody please explain to me what "climate justice" is?
Nietzsche:Justice is nothing more than the instinct of resentment, refined by cleverness.
I suppose it is a slave morality - the weak are using climate as a pretense to express their will to power.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 16, 2023 at 03:20#8379340 likes
Here are a couple quotes from the godfather of "sustainability":
Herbert Marcuse:The environmental crisis is linked to other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, and classism. For example, the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on poor and minority communities is a form of environmental racism. (Ecology and Revolution)
The struggle against environmental destruction is not just a struggle for a clean environment. It is also a struggle for a more just and humane society." (Counterrevolution and Revolt)
unenlightenedSeptember 16, 2023 at 07:53#8379590 likes
Here is a timeline of environmental history, good news and bad news. There's a bit of an American slant, and curiously, no mention of Marcuse that i have come across.
https://environmentalhistory.org/about/
I never liked Marcuse, I came across him in the early seventies, but he always seemed to me an exploiter of environmental concerns for political purposes. and his writing style was awful. But as one reads the timeline, it is clear that the poor and working class are the ones who suffer most from pollution and poor environment, because the rich have the ability to live well away from the sources of their income. This is perhaps why one might get the impression that it is a left wing conspiracy.
But if anyone wonders what environmentalism ever did for us, this timeline has some answers.
The term "climate justice" is used a lot by people who are worried about the climate crisis. Can anybody please explain to me what "climate justice" is?
I think it means the costs of climate change shouldn't be shuffled off onto the poor.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 16, 2023 at 13:03#8380060 likes
I don't think anyone is expecting more plusses than minuses.
There are probably people in some locations who will get more plusses than minuses. Can we expect these people to help to solve global-warming/climate-change?
There are probably people in some locations who will get more plusses than minuses. Can we expect these people to help to solve global-warming/climate-change?
Anyone who benefits better have a nuclear arsenal ready to defend themselves from invasion. :grin:
unenlightenedSeptember 16, 2023 at 14:06#8380220 likes
There are probably people in some locations who will get more plusses than minuses. Can we expect these people to help to solve global-warming/climate-change?
This is not as likely as you might imagine. The obvious places are the very cold regions like the North of Russia and Canada. But the problem is that what currently lives there is adapted to the cold and will not thrive in the warmth, not just the mammals like polar bear and reindeer etc, but humble lichens. The first thing that will happen is more extremes and instability, that will degrade the environment, melting permafrost, more rain less snow leads to faster runoff and soil erosion. There are at the same time already more wildfires in these areas.
The problem for any environment is the speed of change. A 2 degree C. increase in temperature is equivalent to perhaps 1000 km move towards the pole, and most plants cannot move that far in a few decades. (These numbers are not to be taken too literally, because life is complicated, and much is still unknown.) The disastrous costs will have a long run though, before any benefits can begin to accrue.
Anyone who benefits better have a nuclear arsenal ready to defend themselves from invasion. :grin:
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land, glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 16, 2023 at 14:37#8380290 likes
A 2 degree C. increase in temperature is equivalent to perhaps 1000 km move towards the pole, and most plants cannot move that far in a few decades.
Humans can move the plants that they want to move. This solves the problem for plants that can't move themselves. All of our food crops etc will be easy to shift.
wonderer1September 16, 2023 at 15:09#8380380 likes
Humans can move the plants that they want to move. This solves the problem for plants that can't move themselves. All of our food crops etc will be easy to shift.
Things are not that simple.
The Canadian Shield (French: Bouclier canadien [buklje kanadj??]), also called the Laurentian Plateau, is a geologic shield, a large area of exposed Precambrian igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. It forms the North American Craton (or Laurentia), the ancient geologic core of the North American continent. Glaciation has left the area with only a thin layer of soil, through which exposures of igneous bedrock resulting from its long volcanic history are frequently visible.
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land, glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
:nerd:
Russia and Greenland will open up as well. North Dakota will be nice.
Humans can move the plants that they want to move. This solves the problem for plants that can't move themselves. All of our food crops etc will be easy to shift.
I think the main threat to global stability will be climate volatility. A few punches in the face we can handle. But if they just keep coming we'll eventually fall.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 16, 2023 at 15:40#8380490 likes
Just ignore those who have no interest in learning anything. Pat them on the head and reassure them everything will be fine. It’s beneficial…It’s just a narrative…it’ll be okay in 2000 years; whatever it is. Go with it.
This new record comes as exceptional heat swept across much of the world, exacerbating deadly wildfires in Canada and Hawaii, and searing heat waves in South America, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., while likely contributing to severe rainfall in Italy, Greece, and Central Europe.
Nothing exposes the new age of information silos and “do your own research” attitudes as the ridiculous frauds they are like the actual sciences.
In other areas, like art and history and politics— and even philosophy— one can get away with a lot of off-the-cuff, armchair opining. It’s sometimes hard to tell who’s a moron.
That’s why I like to read the “hot takes” on climate. People get used to having an opinion on everything— and getting away with knowing nothing. Like winging it on a test and still getting a passing grade. But with climate change, or evolutionary biology, or civil engineering, or geology, or astrophysics — it’s so incredibly easy to sort out its like a sieve. Very useful.
Anyway— I point it out because it amounts to less time wasted on imbeciles when they go to post on other threads. In this case I recommend everyone read the climate change thread occasionally, to remove all doubt about one’s interlocutors.
The climate is already very variable when you look at summer and winter. Animals and plants have evolved to cope with this variability.
No, it's stuff like bigger droughts and destructive storms. And remember we talked about the potential shutdown of the AMOC. That would essentially destroy western Europe.
unenlightenedSeptember 16, 2023 at 18:18#8380850 likes
Russia and Greenland will open up as well. North Dakota will be nice.
When you have a nice thick heavy ice sheet grinding over the land for a few thousand years, it doesn't do much to improve the topsoil. Greenland will open up indeed, apart from the coastal regions where people live, which will be under water, but the open land will be scoured to bare rock. Perfect for the Flintstones and Asterix and Obelisk. but in a few short decades, pioneer plants will start to build up the soil - dandelions, heathers and the like. In a century or two it will indeed be "nice". Shame about Africa, India Indonesia , etc. though.
unenlightenedSeptember 16, 2023 at 18:23#8380870 likes
Reply to Mikie It's the alien lizards in charge that are doing all this, Everyone knows they are cold blooded and need the planet to be hotter.
And remember we talked about the potential shutdown of the AMOC. That would essentially destroy western Europe.
Now, a new study finds the collapse of the current, which is known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC, could happen far sooner than scientists have previously thought, possibly within a few decades, as a result of human-caused global warming.
"Could"? "Possibly"? Just another example of that alarmist reporting feeding into the official narrative. Let's all freak out and fall in lock step with the doomsayers. "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!"
Doomsaying is probably on par with flattery as the most pathetically overused gimick in human history.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 18, 2023 at 06:35#8383190 likes
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe, climate activism (even alarmism perhaps) can be bona fidesscientifically justified. Morally likewise. What of denialism/contrarianism then?
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 18, 2023 at 18:48#8384850 likes
It didn’t originate with Marcuse. You made that up. Which proves my point about denialist imbeciles.
Who else was talking like this prior to 1964?
Marcuse 1964:Modern man’s despoliation of the environment is global in scope, like his imperialism [...] Today human parasitism disrupts more than the atmosphere, climate, water resources, soil, flora, and fauna of a region; it upsets virtually all the basic cycles of nature and threatens to undermine the stability of the environment on a worldwide scale. (Marcuse 1964)
Marcuse 1964 :Accounts of this kind can be repeated for virtually every part of the biosphere. Pages can be written on the immense losses of productive soil that occur annually in almost every continent of the earth; on the extensive loss of tree cover in areas vulnerable to erosion; on lethal air pollution episodes in major urban areas; on the worldwide distribution of toxic agents, such as radioactive isotopes and lead; on the chemicalization of man’s immediate environment [...] Pieced together like bits of a jigsaw puzzle, these affronts to the environment form a pattern of destruction that has no precedent in man’s long history on the earth.
Marcuse's ideas about the environment were embedded within his broader critique of capitalist societies. While he did not focus exclusively on environmental issues, his work contributed to discussions about the relationship between society and the environment.
.
He viewed the capitalist tendency to turn everything, including nature, into commodities for profit as contributing to environmental problems, and was critical of a consumerist culture that contributed to the generation of pollution and the excessive consumption of resources.
And, athough he was not an environmentalist in the conventional sense, Marcuse believed that achieving greater social justice would require a fundamental transformation of the existing social and economic order, and that such a transformation would have positive implications for rectifying environmental destruction.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 18, 2023 at 19:06#8384950 likes
climate activism (even alarmism perhaps) can be bona fides scientifically justified. Morally likewise. What of denialism/contrarianism then?
Alarmism contributes nothing to scientific "bona fides". It is dead weight. Or is that a critical part of the scientific process that I have been missing?
In my view, denial/contrarianism is sometimes justified when alarmism becomes the main defense for an argument that cannot convince on its own merit.
Activism (and possibly alarmism) can be a bona fides reaction, with scientific justification, and moral guts.
[sup](As an aside, you may entertain whatever view you like; around here you'll have to justify them unless you just want to talk about yourself.)[/sup]
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 18, 2023 at 20:17#8385130 likes
Activism (and possibly alarmism) can be a bona fides reaction, with scientific justification, and moral guts.
Sure, alarmist reaction to scientific data can be genuine. But, it is not necessary to the truth of the science itself. The science should be able to explain things in its own terms, and does not need an alarmist interpretation or an appeal to emotion in order to reify it.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 18, 2023 at 20:19#8385140 likes
Conspiracy theorists will believe anything except the one conspiracy that is actually happening - that the fossil fuel industry has been lying about knowingly killing us all for half a century, & our governments are still funding them to the tune of $13,000,000 every minute.
Now, even run-of-the-mill rainstorms are causing regular flooding in the city.
Residents are striving to stay in their water-damaged homes, while community planners are tasked with fortifying the city from future flooding -- not just from powerful hurricanes, but from everyday rainstorms that are now causing more nuisance flooding than in years past.
But the damage from Hurricane Sally, and the flooding that continues with the regular rainstorms in the years that have followed, threaten to throw her out of the historic home where she has lived since 2016.
More frequent hurricanes wreaking havoc is one thing, increasing flooding + water levels another.
I guess it depends on tides, the Moon, ocean currents, what-have-you — with more liquid water in circulation, some areas will see more flooding.
unenlightenedSeptember 20, 2023 at 14:39#8388900 likes
[quote=Bob Dylan]Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.[/quote]
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 20, 2023 at 21:20#8389990 likes
Now, even run-of-the-mill rainstorms are causing regular flooding in the city.
Residents are striving to stay in their water-damaged homes, while community planners are tasked with fortifying the city from future flooding -- not just from powerful hurricanes, but from everyday rainstorms that are now causing more nuisance flooding than in years past.
I was in Pensacola prior to 2020. It was a total shithole. Most of the buildings buildings were run down, and the roads and bridges looked like they hadn't been maintained for decades. I didn't take a close look, but one could assume the stormwater drains were also in a long state of disrepair. It makes complete sense that Pensacola would be having such problems with its third world infrastructure.
DeSantis just laid out HIS solutions to global warming:
In a lengthy, six-pronged policy outline, Mr. DeSantis promised to remove subsidies for electric vehicles, take the U.S. out of global climate agreements — including the Paris accords — and cancel net-zero emission promises. He also vowed to increase American oil and natural gas production and “replace the phrase climate change with energy dominance” in policy guidance.
This is why Republicans are the most dangerous party in history.
Let’s not only do nothing about climate change — let’s cancel any effort to do so, make the problem even worse, and remove all reference to it.
The lunatics have decided to remove the foundations and fly the asylum to the land of freedom. I don't think they'll get very far, but I wish i wouldn't be buried in the rubble.
When politicians try to repeal the laws of physics, people die, but the laws stand firm.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 21, 2023 at 17:51#8392490 likes
This is why Republicans are the most dangerous party in history.
That's over the top.
Communists throughout the past century have an outstanding track record of perpetrating obscene amounts of state sponsored murder against their own citizens, with astounding consistency and efficiency. The republican leadership is manned by too many moldy turds to ever see it murder its own citizens as effectively as Communists have done.
Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?
Not that I’m aware of. Is the Republican organisation - I hesitate to call it a party - committed to that? Overwhelmingly. There isn’t even any question about it.
[…]
We’re going to maximise the use of fossil fuels - could carry us past the tipping point. We’re not going to provide funding for - as committed in Paris, to developing countries that are trying to do something about the climate problems. We’re going to dismantle regulations that retard the impact, the devastating impact, of production of carbon dioxide and, in fact, other dangerous gases - methane, others.
Not hard to see. Unless of course you deny what scientists are telling us because they’re bought off… or part of an elaborate conspiracy…or pushing an “official narrative” (like reading thermometers).
But aside from that kind of idiocy, it’s easy to acknowledge.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 23, 2023 at 00:40#8396660 likes
Reply to Mikie Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change.
On the other hand, Communism has been the vehicle from.which the worst tyrants in history have wreaked their unwanton death and destruction. The only other forces that come close to the evil of communism are Nazism, and Japanese Militarism. However, these fall short due to their obvious limited appeal (in contrast to communism which lends itself to universal appeal). Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, and actually have much greater similarity with democrats.
Republicans, for all their faults, were instrumental in the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I don't know about you, but I think that was pretty nice on their part, and it definitely counterbalances any negativity one might perceive from their policy on climate change.
Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s.
Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these,
Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.
Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 23, 2023 at 07:52#8397240 likes
Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s.
World history is always relevant to today's world, in one way or another. And 1870 isn't far off, the 13-15th amendments are active at this very time. communism also has its own historical relevance in today's world.
Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.
Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with.
Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? You don't have to be republican to disagree. Im not a republican. It is not an obvious truth, and there are many reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world,
which is why it needs to be presented with care if it is, in fact, the end of the world.
The fact that It is always presented with such alarmist compulsion, gives rise to very reasonable doubt in my mind. There is no need for compulsory action nor alarmist affectation, any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. This is the great x-factor.
For you, the argument is undeniable, you assent to the evidence because it appears convincing, and consent to the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because you consider them reliable for good reason... no harm there. I do the same, only in reverse: I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, and dissent from the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because I consider them unreliable for good reason... no harm meant. Unfortunately, all my judgment is suspended until sufficient doubts are rectified, nevertheless, both our positions are both quite understandable.
For me, the data is convincing in itself. It is the media communicating the meaning of the data to us, and the particular compulsory message they are delivering that I have issue with. I have a hard time trusting anything that gets filtered through any of the major media news outlets in such fashion. I know their game too well, it has been the same for decades. Distrust, that's what happens with liars. Let's hope this is more of the same: lying. If not, woe is us.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 23, 2023 at 08:07#8397280 likes
I suppose that would include the historically accumulated data that is used to predict the future trajectory of climate change. It's all a red herring.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 23, 2023 at 11:04#8397530 likes
scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?
— Agree-to-Disagree
Who are they? Multi-National windmill manufacturers?
The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change.
The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”.
unenlightenedSeptember 23, 2023 at 12:34#8397660 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Well there's some Orgs spending money, but are they making money? you know like Big Oil, and Big Pharma? Show me the commercial interests distorting the science, not governments responding to a crisis. There's a big difference.
Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons.
any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time.
It already has. That time is long over. We’re in the process of implementing measures to adapt to it and hopefully slow it/stop it. Sorry that you’re still stuck in the past — but that’s not my business.
I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing,
You haven’t once mentioned the evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming. For one “not to be convinced” requires real effort.
Don’t try to frame this as if your conclusion isn’t foregone. No one is buying that. And no one buys that you have a clue about the evidence— which is undeniable if one actually takes a look.
What you’ve done is chosen to listen to political commentators and the manufactured doubt of the industry (which is well documented). I’ve encountered plenty like this. Dime a dozen.
The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”.
Except this was from two years ago. And, incidentally, DIDN’T PASS. Would have been great if it did— it would have invested nearly $600 million in climate solutions, over 10 years, which is far less than is needed but still something.
But— again — it didn’t pass. So once again you’re just making engaging in your topical buffoonery.
No, that’s not a red herring, that’s completely relevant and important when talking about climate change and climate projections.
When talking about the statement “The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in history,” citing things the party did in the 1870s are irrelevant and a red herring. Because we’re not talking about the Republican Party from the 1870s. We’re talking about the current party.
If you can’t keep up with the conversation, better to just stifle yourself.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 24, 2023 at 03:17#8399220 likes
In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.
A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.
Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.
This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather.
If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.
But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.
I’m glad you’ve now given up on any pretext of caring about climate science and have now gone full climate denial. Awesome.
Quoting the heritage foundation and an imbecile and proven fraud like Stephen Moore for “evidence” of a global conspiracy. A new low.
Climate Change Industrial Complex.
:rofl:
But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us.
So just typical selective skepticism, trying to imply that it’s the thousands of scientists around the world who are biased, not the shills for fossil fuels like Stephen Moore and Heritage.
The funding to adapt to climate change has nothing to do with physics and climate science. And the IPCC doesn’t talk about “apocalypse.” That’s just a stupid strawman.
If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.
Ohhh I see— so this mysterious evidence that the crisis isn’t happening is suppressed globally. But Stephen Moore must know what that evidence is…he’s an expert in all this, of course…and definitely someone we should be listening to on this matter.
Good god you’re pathetic.
Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. Whatever makes you happy. Just please stop embarrassing yourself any further. Go read more of what conservative, fossil fuel funded think tanks tell you. This way you can feel special in your “skepticism.” Be well.
MerkwurdichliebeSeptember 24, 2023 at 04:39#8399280 likes
Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is.
But look at the data, its science!
There are many reasons to deny. And many more.
javi2541997September 24, 2023 at 04:55#8399320 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Good data and reliable information, thanks for sharing it, and I have been reading your posts since for the last months because you provide solid facts. :up:
He doesn't like science and evidence which cannot back up his fanaticism. The only thing he does against counter-arguments or people who disagree with him is insulting:
Is this graph too hard to understand? Is it a narrative? Is it the result of scientific groupthink? Is it all based on made-up data? Is it really nothing to worry about?
It’s no coincidence that right wing/ conservative/libertarian/Christian evangelical ideology is usually at the heart of climate denial. Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.
Thus the well-qualified “skeptics” here making fools of themselves are the very same people who defend Donald Trump, who constantly harp against communism and socialism, are always whining about big government, and/or are devout Christians.
Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 24, 2023 at 07:18#8399430 likes
Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.
From the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Mikie, thank you for showing that this statement is true. :100:
unenlightenedSeptember 24, 2023 at 07:46#8399450 likes
It's not interesting. It doesn't follow the money. The only fact is that the government is spending money on climate research (and presumably on mitigation measures, but the distinction is not made). But there is no explanation of any financial incentive for anyone to persuade the government to act in this way. government is creating research, and government is creating a green industry , and these new industries are creating the crisis? It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. Why invest in green energy rather than oil? Not a hint of a tint of an answer. No financial motive even suggested for any conspiracy.
Established financial interests can and do conspire to distort science and influence governments Oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceuticals, agro chemicals. Where is the financial interest in your conspiracy? There is none, because there is none you have mentioned, and there is none in the feeble article you cited. Because all the industries that might have such interests have been created by the supposed conspiracy they are supposed to have conspired to create.
It's nonsense on stilts, and straight out of the kindergarten playground of unimaginative reflecting of complaints with zero attention to good sense. It has become the tactic of first resort these days.
"The oil industry is cheating."
" No, the green industry is cheating."
The first claim is supported by motive, leaked documentary evidence, campaign funds records etc etc. The second has nothing. not even a suspect to accuse.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 24, 2023 at 08:23#8399480 likes
It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it.
Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money.
unenlightenedSeptember 24, 2023 at 08:42#8399510 likes
That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.
flannel jesusSeptember 24, 2023 at 09:07#8399560 likes
The strength of a conspiracy theory decreases the more people you need to be in on the lie. Climate Change as a conspiracy theory needs the vast majority of the scientific community in on the lie. To think that an industry that barely even existed 3 decades ago could out-fund the oil industry into convincing all these scientists to lie - when we KNOW that the oil industry was wealthy and was willing to fund propaganda for a fact - is really super duper absurd.
That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.
The pot calling the ice cream-maker black. Reminds me of the sexual morality of the Catholic church.
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
What “research” dares to question it? All I’m seeing is the usual claims of “maybe data is being suppressed because of Big Climate” conspiracies. No research whatsoever. Just stupid claim after stupid claim by an economic commentator for a conservative think tank.
While it’s funny that he accurately describes himself, plenty of con man do the same thing. “I’m not gonna steal your money — what do you think I am, a con man?”
If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money.
Except plenty of progress has been made, and Moore’s claims that anyone is saying otherwise is, as usual, complete nonsense that you lap up unquestioningly.
For someone so skeptical of climate science, you sure do put a lot of trust in the Heritage Foundation and non-climate scientists.
It’s almost as if this were selective skepticism.
Moore rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 2009, he described climate change as "the biggest scam of the last two decades."[25] In columns and op-eds, Moore called those with concerns about climate change "Stalinistic" and has accused climate scientists of being part of a global conspiracy to obtain money via research grants.[26][27] In an April 2019 interview, Moore said that the Federal Reserve should not consider the economic impacts of climate change in decision-making.[28]
Just a non-biased source bravely questioning the establishment, the groupthink of scientists around the world who are just faking the data for research grants, and who don’t dare present the “evidence” disproving climate change.
People believe this stuff. Do people this ignorant really exist or am I being punk’d?
That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.
No no! Remember he said not to question the person or the institution. So that’s ruled out. Except when dealing with scientists and scientific institutions around the world — that’s where the real conspiracy lies.
NASA and the Royal Society? Questionable sources — never mind the evidence.
The Heritage Foundation? Hey stick with what’s said.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 25, 2023 at 02:44#8400990 likes
Mikie, you suffer from the worst case of "black-or-white" logical fallacy that I have ever seen. Compared to you devout christians are tolerant and reasonable. :grin:
No, I just have little tolerance for climate deniers spreading propaganda from the Heritage Foundation. There’s no “black and white” fallacy. And the attempts to portray those who listen to the counter scientists and overwhelming evidence is, as usual, quite pathetic.
Anyway — do you have anything left to add to this thread? Any more Koch propaganda you’d like to share? If not, consider running along.
But how do we REALLY know there’s that much CO2 or that the temperatures have risen? Have YOU seen the thermometers or ice core samples? Have YOU been to Mauna Loa?
Science has been wrong before! We should question the [s]overwhelming evidence[/s] narratives! And I say this because I’m super smart and free thinking. Unlike the dupes that listen to these “climate scientist” types.
But Heritage Foundation is cool. And trustworthy. Because they have no reason whatsoever to undermine trust in science or deliberately manufacture doubt.
unenlightenedSeptember 25, 2023 at 15:32#8401790 likes
But Reply to Mikie, can you not see the graphs going up? That means things are getting better, because nearer to God.
Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons.
"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. The ccp is accelerating it as well. And unchallenged, since they have no opposition from anyone. At least the Republicans have the dems constantly bitching about the world coming to an end and giving pushback.
Actually the CCP are doing far more than the Republicans. And they also don’t pretend climate change isn’t happening. Whatever their failings, they don’t hold a candle to the most dangerous organization in history.
My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes.
The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. We have been burning parts of the Earth (e.g. wood, coal, gas, oil, etc) for a long time, and this has improved the quality of life for most people (including you).
The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house.
:ok:
Nevermind. Bye.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 25, 2023 at 23:41#8403090 likes
Mikie has absolute faith in climate scientists.
But do climate scientists have absolute faith in themselves?
These quotes come from Wikipedia's "Model accuracy" section of the "General circulation model" webpage"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Model_accuracy
The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report asserted "very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period". However, the report also observed that the rate of warming over the period 1998–2012 was lower than that predicted by 111 out of 114 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project climate models.
AOGCMs internalise as many processes as are sufficiently understood. However, they are still under development and significant uncertainties remain.
A debate over how to reconcile climate model predictions that upper air (tropospheric) warming should be greater than observed surface warming, some of which appeared to show otherwise, was resolved in favour of the models, following data revisions.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE MODELS WERE WRONG. BUT INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THE MODELS THEY "DOCTORED" THE DATA TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF THE MODELS WERE CORRECT.
Cloud effects are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on climate. They cool the surface by reflecting sunlight into space; they warm it by increasing the amount of infrared radiation transmitted from the atmosphere to the surface. In the 2001 IPCC report possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as a major uncertainty in predicting climate.
However the simulated change in precipitation was about one-fourth less than what was observed. Errors in simulated precipitation imply errors in other processes, such as errors in the evaporation rate that provides moisture to create precipitation. The other possibility is that the satellite-based measurements are in error. Either indicates progress is required in order to monitor and predict such changes.
THEY EVEN ADMIT THAT THE SATELLITE-BASED MEASUREMENTS COULD BE IN ERROR.
The precise magnitude of future changes in climate is still uncertain
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few months back. [/hide]
unenlightenedSeptember 26, 2023 at 10:51#8404270 likes
Pipe dream. a literal pipe dream. Two of them in fact. Hydrogen and fusion. Instead of taking action, fantasise about the magic bullet we will have in ten or twenty years. Maybe.
Instead of
Agriculture reform.
transport system reorganisation
building redesign
development of green energy sources and infrastructure including mass storage, using already available technology.
unenlightenedSeptember 26, 2023 at 11:08#8404350 likes
[quote=Trenberth et al.]Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon were both asked about climate change at the end of the leaders' debate this week, and neither response was helpful.
Both talked about cutting emissions – and in a personal capacity, recycling – but neither addressed the most important issue staring us in the face, and that is recognising that climate change is here, it is accelerating and getting worse, and it has consequences. We must adapt to the changes, plan for them and build resilience, and we need to do so urgently.[/quote]
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/beyond-recycling-what-to-do-about-climate-change
[quote=Trenberth]Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 1.1?, driven by human activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels which adds greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) to the atmosphere.
As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture in the form of water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas. This in turn amplifies the warming caused by our emissions of other greenhouse gases.
Some people mistakenly believe water vapour is a driver of Earth’s current warming. But as I explain below, water vapour is part of Earth’s hydrological cycle and plays an important role in the natural greenhouse effect. Its rise is a consequence of the atmospheric warming caused by our emissions arising especially from burning fossil fuels.[/quote]
[quote=Trenberth]To address climate change threats in New Zealand will require more than mobilising private investment with a focus on renewable energy. It will need a comprehensive and collaborative approach that acknowledges dependencies on shipping and air travel, which continue to depend on fossil fuels.
Here are ten broad areas that must be considered when tackling the specific and sometimes unique challenges New Zealand faces in the years ahead.[/quote]
https://theconversation.com/meeting-the-long-term-climate-threat-takes-more-than-private-investment-10-ways-nz-can-be-smart-and-strategic-211100
And the ten point plan that follows is quite radical, sensible and doable without waiting for the magic bullet that is only decades away.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 27, 2023 at 05:32#8406850 likes
But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money.
From your link:
Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.
Are you seriously comparing the $30,000 paid to Judith Curry with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming?
Seriously ???
$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.
Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?
The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand.
How much do you think the dozen expert witnesses will be paid to support the other side of the case?
Yes. Please follow the money. For Judith Curry AND the other expert witnesses working for the other side of the case.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 27, 2023 at 05:42#8406860 likes
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
unenlightenedSeptember 27, 2023 at 07:00#8406900 likes
$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.
Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?
The lawyers for the Montana youth, who first filed their complaint in 2020, intend to bring a dozen expert witnesses to the stand.
Now I see how it works! One maverick retired scientist is a honest Joe getting fairly paid, but a dozen is a venal conspiracy. You must be right because everyone disagrees.
with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming?
You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is from a bill that didn’t pass anyway.
Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 28, 2023 at 01:00#8409250 likes
What’s the price of a green economy? An extra $3.5 trillion a year
Getting to net zero by 2050 will cost an extra $3.5 trillion a year, according to a new study by McKinsey.
Consultancy firm McKinsey says total global spending by governments, businesses and individuals on energy and land-use systems will need to rise by $3.5 trillion a year, every year, if we are to have any chance of getting to net-zero in 2050.
That’s a 60% increase on today’s level of investment and is equivalent to half of global corporate profits, a quarter of world tax revenue and 7% of household spending. A further $1 trillion would also need to be reallocated from high-emission to low-carbon assets.
This quote states that $3.5 trillion a year is a 60% increase on todays level of investment.
So todays level of investment = $3.5 trillion divided by 1.6 = $2.1875 trillion
$2.1875 trillion is very close to $2.2 trillion, the amount that I mentioned
[added after the original post - I just realised that these numbers are for the whole world, not just the US]
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 28, 2023 at 02:40#8409500 likes
Given that preaching, protesting, bullying, and insulting are not winning the war on climate-change/global-warming, is there a better way to get people's support?
I don't get your point about government spending to combat climate change. Are you saying there's a worldwide conspiracy by governments, scientists, and research institutes?
Agree-to-DisagreeSeptember 28, 2023 at 05:14#8409720 likes
I am not saying that there is a worldwide conspiracy. I was just making the point that a very large amount of money is required to "go green" and fight climate-change/global-warming.
And it could be far less if people would be prepared to consume less. The problem is that people just assume sustainability is doing the same but greener. We really need a system change more than investments.
I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas.
It should be noted that reluctance to swap over to nuclear doesn't just come from oil and gas producers, but also the fact that the nuclear energy market is largely dominated by the Russian company Rosatom.
Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia own a significant chunk of the oil and gas market, so why would Russia dominating the nuclear energy market be a deterrence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you here.
Reply to Mr Bee Because of energy dependency. In the case of nuclear energy it's more extreme than with oil and gas. I think Rosatom holds something in the range of 90% of the total market share, including all the related services (maintenance, waste disposal, etc.).
Reply to Tzeentch Fair enough, though I have to say that Russia owning most of the nuclear energy stores may not have been as much of an issue prior to the Ukraine war. Germany in particular was widely criticized by many of it's allies for ditching nuclear energy in favor of Russian oil, creating a dependency that bit them later on.
And it could be far less if people would be prepared to consume less.
That is a complex issue. Consuming less implies a lower standard of living for many people, and a lower standard of living would be a hard sell to most everyone at anytime in history. However, less consumption does not necessarily correlate with a lower standard of living. There are ways that industries could be profitable without relying on endless compulsory consumption (in fact it has been done very successfully in the past, but abandoned for the more profitable model).
One of the problems with the more profitable model of endless compulsory consumption is obsolescence.
Nothing is made to last anymore, thus endless production and waste.
Imagine if the car industry had evolved to produce cars that could be easily maintained with universal modular replaceable parts (like a pc), so that you could buy one car that could last you forever. Think about how the engine module could easily be replaced with a more efficient one. The auto industry could have still made a killing on producing modules without unecessary infinite waste by-product.
Imagine if every asshole didn't need a new iphone every 2 seconds because they added a new pubic hair behind the camera. Apple is one of the most profitable industries ever because of the mythical upgrade - just another tragedy of brainless compulsory consumption.
People do indeed consume too much, but I cannot blame them because they have no other choice than a soon-to-be obsolete product. It is the forces of industry and commerce that hold all the blame - due to their greed and lack of vision.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe Oh, plenty of vision but solely aimed at making profit. The fundamental problem is that "the economy" or "the market" has become the goal and measurement of all human endeavour and there's a small group of people and countries this benefits. Until we can turn this around, hexing economies work for the benefit of humanity we will not solve global warming.
I sincerely believe we will have to retreat into regional communities again and trade in the iPhone upgrade for actual connection with neighbours and nature.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 01, 2023 at 09:45#8418200 likes
Imagine if every asshole didn't need a new iphone every 2 seconds because they added a new pubic hair behind the camera. Apple is one of the most profitable industries ever because of the mythical upgrade - just another tragedy of brainless compulsory consumption.
As I have said before, the way to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used is for consumers to reduce their demand (individually or as a group). There is little point in blaming the oil companies for supplying a product that people want.
Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint, not blame others (e.g. oil companies) for their own use of fossil fuels.
I can give you an example related to Merkwurdichliebe's comment. Apple have just released the iPhone 15. I am still using my iPhone 8. My iPhone 8 works as well as it did when I bought it, and it still does everything that I want it to do. I have avoided 7 new releases and have used the same iPhone for about 7 years.
You don't have to be a slave to Apple's upgrades. Apple products are usually very high quality and will perform well for many years. I suggest that you look at this webpage to see what the carbon footprint of an iPhone is:
https://www.compareandrecycle.co.uk/blog/iphone-lifecycle-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-iphone
Now I can feel sanctimonious because I have kept my carbon footprint down. :halo:
In the same way, you don't have to be a slave to the oil companies. The oil companies are not holding a gun to your head to force you to use fossil fuels. Grow some balls (or ovaries if you are female) and reduce your own carbon footprint. Force the oil companies to reduce the supply of fossil fuels by reducing the demand for fossil fuels.
Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker.
I will use the abbreviation CC/GW to stand for Climate-Change/Global-Warming.
Your comment Mikie (which is shared by many people who are concerned about CC/GW) is why I am so confident that CC/GW won't be "solved".
If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem.
The oil companies want to maximize profit. They don't want to over supply because that would mean less profit. They make maximum profit by matching demand. Reduce the demand and they will reduce the supply. Demand will be reduced if everybody reduces their carbon footprint. This is a simple and obvious fact which is not understood, or is ignored (possibly deliberately to avoid taking personal responsibility) by many/most people who are concerned about CC/GW.
Mikie, the solution to CC/GW is in your hands, and the hands of people like you. Stop blaming others and start taking personal responsibility. Who knows, you might make a difference?
If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem.
Yeah, except no one is advocating that. It’s just another mental block you can’t seem to overcome.
This will not be solved individually. We need collective action and governmental action. You announcing that you’ve fallen for the BS oil propaganda isn’t surprising, but isn’t very interesting either.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 02, 2023 at 18:19#8421840 likes
Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint.
Yep, including Big Oil and corporate America.
The very short counterargument is that individual acts of thrift and abstinence won’t get us the huge distance we need to go in this decade. We need to exit the age of fossil fuels, reinvent our energy landscape, rethink how we do almost everything. We need collective action at every scale from local to global – and the good people already at work on all those levels need help in getting a city to commit to clean power or a state to stop fracking or a nation to end fossil-fuel subsidies. The revolution won’t happen by people staying home and being good.
But the oil companies would like you to think that’s how it works. It turns out that the concept of the “carbon footprint”, that popular measure of personal impact, was the brainchild of an advertising firm working for BP. As Mark Kaufman wrote this summer:
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.
The main reason to defeat the fossil fuel corporations is that their product is destroying the planet, but their insidious propaganda, from spreading climate-change denial to pushing this climate footprint business, makes this goal even more worthwhile.
From the article above.
Again, nice to see even when you pretend to care about this issue you can't help but repeat stupid propaganda from BP. :up:
unenlightenedOctober 07, 2023 at 07:16#8434340 likes
They did the maths, so you don't have to. 43 million children - and presumably quite a few adults too. We need more walls and higher walls. This is obviously a conspiracy.
Scrolling down past the temperature graphs, we come to the Antarctic sea ice graph. It looks scary.
Antarctic sea ice extent remained at a record low level for the time of year.?
Both the daily and monthly extents reached their lowest annual maxima in the satellite record in September, with the monthly extent 9% below average.?
That's 9% less reflective sea ice and 9% more dark absorbent open water as we head towards the Antarctic Summer.
I might be wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But pull your boat well up the beach next year.
Agree-to-DisagreeOctober 10, 2023 at 11:23#8444350 likes
Climate change: Study warns deadly humid heat could hit billions as wet-bulb temperatures soar
Billions of people could struggle to survive in periods of deadly, humid heat within this century as temperatures rise, particularly in some of the world's largest cities, from Delhi to Shanghai, according to research published on Monday.
The study built on past research by Huber, George Mason University climatologist Daniel Vecellio and other scientists on the point at which heat and humidity combine to push the human body beyond its limits without shade or help from technologies such as air conditioning.
It found that around 750 million people could experience one week per year of potentially deadly humid heat if temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.
At 3C (5.4F) of warming, more than 1.5 billion people would face such a threat, according to the paper published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
The world is on track for 2.8C (5F) of warming by the year 2100 under current policies, according to the 2022 United Nations Emissions Gap report.
This is an example of the problems caused by weather volatility. It's not just a matter of destructive storms. It's that agriculture as we know it can't tolerate weather variability.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2023 at 04:18#8507560 likes
Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution
A new study published in Oxford Open Climate Change, led by renowned U.S. climate scientist James Hansen, suggests one of the main drivers has been an unintentional global geoengineering experiment: the reduction of ship tracks.
As commercial ships move across the ocean, they emit exhaust that includes sulfur. This can contribute to the formation of marine clouds through aerosols — also known as ship tracks — which radiate heat back out into space.
However, in 2020, as part of an effort to curb the harmful aerosol pollution released by these ships, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) imposed strict regulations on shipping, reducing sulfur content in fuel from 3.5 per cent to 0.5 per cent.
The reduction in marine clouds has allowed more heat to be absorbed into the oceans, accelerating an energy imbalance, where more heat is being trapped than being released.
"The 1.5-degree limit is deader than a doornail," said Hansen, whose 1988 congressional testimony on climate change helped sound the alarm of global warming. "And the two-degree limit can be rescued, only with the help of purposeful actions."
Question - should we stop trying to reduce air pollution and aerosol pollution until after global-warming/climate-change is under control?
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2023 at 09:59#8507880 likes
Greta Thunberg and her Gen Z friends owe Baby Boomers an apology over climate change
They said ‘older generations’ had let young people down. Yet a new poll on green lifestyle choices tells a very different story
In the poll, those aged 18-24 claimed to be the most worried about climate change. When it came to doing something other than moan, however, it was a different story. Almost 90 per cent of the over-65s said they recycled “as much as possible”, compared with only half of the young. The old were also more likely to save water, turn down the heating, wash their clothes at low temperatures, buy locally produced food, avoid excessive packaging, buy energy-efficient appliances, switch off the lights when leaving a room, and repair things rather than throw them away. On top of that, more of them had cut down on the number of flights they took.
Greta’s generation were more likely to have given up meat. But otherwise, it seemed to be the old doing most of the work.
What are we to make of this mysterious discrepancy? Perhaps Greta’s generation is in such deep despair about the future of the planet that some of them have simply given up trying to save it. There is, however, an alternative possibility – which is that they care more about being seen to have the “right” opinion on climate change than they do about tackling it. A type of behaviour that older people like to call “virtue-signalling”.
:halo:
unenlightenedNovember 04, 2023 at 19:29#8509020 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree Of all your attempts to undermine the purposes of this thread, this is undoubtedly the most mean-spirited, spiteful, and useless.
To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment. Do what you can to help, and support whatever others can do to help, or just fuck off and die.
You might consider for a moment that the young are not householders by and large, and renters cannot invest in green living the way householders can. But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 04, 2023 at 20:12#8509080 likes
To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment.
It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". They blame almost everything on the older generation. Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example?
Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example?
I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. You do know that Deacon is a satirical journalist don't you? Take what he says with a pinch of irony, maybe.
If sea levels rise and catastrophic weather events continue, think of all the money that will be spent repairing infrastructure, relocating climate refugees, and in efforts to make new use of land. That means a massive number of Asians, Africans, Central and South Americans will be forced to relocate to your country and there will be much less tenable space inside it to share. This is because many of the worlds cities will become unlivable, and the least repairable will be those in third world countries. That is what the current models predict will happen if global warming is allowed to continue.
If you are 71 and three quarters then you are likely to die before me.
That rather depends on who (if anyone) decides to fuck with you, and how.
[quote=Bob Dylan]But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
You’ll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
"Only a pawn in their game."[/quote]
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 08, 2023 at 12:02#8516470 likes
To put it another way, current temperatures are not higher than they were in the past.
It's been a lot hotter, yes. There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling. That event was actually due to large amounts of CO2 being pumped into the air from volcanoes, though. So we are headed for increased weather volatility and stress to survive it around the world. Yay!
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2023 at 12:30#8519000 likes
When are you talking about Frank? The graph that I displayed shows the history over the last 420,000 years. Are you claiming that "There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling" at some time in the last 420,000 years?
The graph shows a regular pattern with peaks about every 100,000 years. I don't think that major volcanic activity is likely to happen on such a regular schedule.
The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.
What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.
True. There are huge number of variables that go into climate conditions. That's why they use super computers to model it.
What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from.
unenlightenedNovember 09, 2023 at 13:05#8519100 likes
2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists
— Kate Abnett and Gloria Dickie, Reuters
Think carefully about the implications of this statement.
Look carefully at the graph you posted, and you will see that the previous peak temperature was about 125,000 years ago and was just a tad higher than now. So the quote is an accurate description of what is in the graph.
But what you leave out that is highlighted on the graph with a nice red highlighter, is how very out of the 400,000 year cycle the Co2 level is at the moment. We have thrown a C02 quilt on the planet that will warm it to a level unprecedented in at least the 400,000 years of that graph, it being obvious that the actual temperature lags behind the measure of the insulation. The CO2 level is literally off the scale, and in 50 to 100 years, the temperature will be too.
Not only that, but the steepness of the rise is also unprecedented, meaning that the change in climate will be unprecedentedly fast, making the adaptation of the biological environment more difficult. Forests, for example can only move very slowly, by the reach of their seeds per year.
But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll:
But what you leave out that is highlighted on the graph with a nice red highlighter, is how very out of the 400,000 year cycle the Co2 level is at the moment. We have thrown a C02 quilt on the planet that will warm it to a level unprecedented in at least the 400,000 years of that graph, it being obvious that the actual temperature lags behind the measure of the insulation.
This is usually the elephant in the room when it comes to discussions with climate denialists. Insofar as the denialism is motivated by an emotional need for climate change to not be true, which is often the case, it's usually straight up ignored.
But I do remember that @Agree-to-Disagree did acknowledge the effects of CO2 earlier in this thread, so one does wonder where all of this is going.
Climate science: the one domain where a layperson's normal humility goes completely out the window.
You wouldn't find the average person, with no formal (or even informal) training or education walking into a physics or engineering department and lecturing the teachers -- based on a few news articles they've read, or the 30 minutes they've taken to "think critically and skeptically" about the issue, supposedly finding mistakes that all the world's experts have missed.
You wouldn't see this in any other field -- that hasn't been politicized, of course. If something has been manufactured as "controversial," then these ridiculous claims can be made. Suddenly they're "skeptics" just "asking questions." Yeah, sure.
Thus, we have nonsense claims about building structures from 9/11 "truthers," bogus claims about vaccines from anti-vaxxers, laughable statements about geology from creationists, and god knows what from flat-earthers.
You would think these imbeciles would hesitate when it comes to science. Especially science that is so overwhelmingly supported. But it doesn't stop them. They simply must embarrass themselves over and over.
When I was a child, I did the same thing -- it was my way of learning, in the end. Rather than ask questions, I pretended I knew what I was talking about regarding biochemistry. But I grew out of that. It would be nice if climate deniers did the same -- but since it's not about evidence anyway, I won't hold my breath.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2023 at 21:59#8520740 likes
They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from.
Frank, I was a computer programmer for the last 40 years. Just because they "model the climate with super computers" doesn't prove that they are correct. A climate model is based on many assumptions. To "subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere" they need to know how big the effect is. This relies on assumptions. The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. Which value did the climate scientists use?
If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2023 at 22:10#8520780 likes
The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range.
I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. It would be sweet if the revised ECS was lower than previously thought. It's higher though. That's how I know I haven't stumbled into an alternate universe. The news is worse than expected. :worry:
If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat.
True. I was just answering the question you asked.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2023 at 22:28#8520850 likes
Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it?
I think that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels. But slowly enough to not cause very large problems. When the technology is really better than fossil fuels then people will be queuing up to get it. They won't need subsidies and pushing.
The fact is that sea levels are rising. Whether due to human activity or not. We need to make infrastructure changes for this. But infrastructure eventually needs replacing anyway, and this is an opportunity to improve it.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 09, 2023 at 23:13#8520930 likes
But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake.
You aren't sufficiently informed, to speak with anywhere near the authority you pretend to. The VERY expensive mistake, of allowing the CO2 levels to continue to rise, has been ongoing for decades.
The notion of dumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere has been under consideration for a long time:
Mikhail Budyko is believed to have been the first, in 1974, to put forth the concept of artificial solar radiation management with stratospheric sulfate aerosols if global warming ever became a pressing issue.[150] Such controversial climate engineering proposals for global dimming have sometimes been called a "Budyko Blanket". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#History
It's indicative of how bad we have let it get, that polluting the atmosphere in additional ways has to be considered as a possible option.
Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink:
How about some basic epistemology?
If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence.
And if several news stations report the event, then it is more likely the event did occur, correct? It is possible they're all simply repeating the same story, or have made the exact same error, but prima facie it still increases the odds.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 10, 2023 at 00:13#8521020 likes
Reply to Mikie
That sort of thing used to be the norm. But now in the Post Truth era, one decides on an expedient conclusion, then cherrypicks data to support the predetermined conclusion. You really need to get with the times...
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 10, 2023 at 11:31#8521840 likes
If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence.
So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc.
These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased.
The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value.
So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc.
These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased.
I was referring to an event specifically, that means something happening at a specific time and place. Things get trickier when we deal with other subjects more broadly, and I wanted to start simple.
Assume you know nothing about either the event X or the sources. In the three scenarios:
A) There's no reporting on X,
B) a single source is reporting X happened,
C) 10 sources report X happened,
would you not agree that the chance that X did actually happen is highest in scenario C?
The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value.
I'm making no argument regarding that specific claim.
I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?
— Agree-to-Disagree
Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing.
I have recently posted about:
- the ECS
- my belief that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels
- what I think we should do about rising sea levels
- a news item with the title "2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists"
- a news item with the title "Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution"
- the reason why the climate scientist James Hansen thinks that the Earth is warming faster than expected
Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change?
Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change?
They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.
Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest.
unenlightenedNovember 10, 2023 at 13:01#8522020 likes
They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.
Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest.
A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda.
I do wonder why though. What is the specific motivation?
unenlightenedNovember 10, 2023 at 19:46#8523030 likes
Reply to Echarmion We have been lied to and manipulated so much that trust has been lost in politicians, scientists, and the media. It is impossible now to trust authority, and so people are left rudderless, and prey to any fantastic conspiracy theory. To be contrarian is just another masquerade of sceptical rigour - the less one knows about something the more fair-mind one must be in opposing whatever is the consensus. Perhaps we never should have trusted them, perhaps we never did. I blame psychology as the science of lies; it has driven us all insane.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 11, 2023 at 11:36#8524240 likes
But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism".
I am interested in what other people have to say. I am inviting people to comment on the topics that I post about. If you have anything constructive to say then you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 11, 2023 at 11:40#8524260 likes
A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda.
You are attacking me personally without commenting on what I have said. Making an ad hominem attack on a Philosophy Forum is the ultimate irony.
unenlightenedNovember 11, 2023 at 12:18#8524290 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree I already addressed what you said, and my complaint that you quote is that you deal in innuendo and never even have a point to make. If you actually made an argument, I would do my best to address it, but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at. But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 11, 2023 at 19:52#8525020 likes
but since you confine yourself to 'whataboutisms' and feeble attempts to undermine climate science from a position of sublime ignorance, there is little but your personality to go at.
Reply to Echarmion Does one get any rest from spite, despite a respite from spite? I mean, spite and then re-spite? Can we de-spite somebody, the way one de-worms a dog?
No wonder the world is getting hotter.
MerkwurdichliebeNovember 12, 2023 at 02:01#8525500 likes
But I don't blame you really, you are only a pawn in their game.
— unenlightened
Oh, the irony, it burns.
You two are so poetical. You both move forward one square at a time, while capturing diagonally, and if you happen to begin the debate, your first move has the option to move forward two squares instead of one...like the rest of us
MerkwurdichliebeNovember 12, 2023 at 02:22#8525540 likes
One could say that, in a sense, spite really is a major contributor.
Can we discount spite as a reasonable response? Might spite not be called for in certain situations?
My main question is: What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?
What if the problem of climate change has less to do with human caused carbon emissions, and more to do with the natural phenomenon of human conflict, transgression, &c.? Could science even measure that?
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 12, 2023 at 02:34#8525560 likes
You two are so poetical. You both move forward one square at a time, while capturing diagonally, and if you happen to begin the debate, your first move has the option to move forward two squares instead of one...like the rest of us
Checkmate. :cool: :up: :party:
MerkwurdichliebeNovember 12, 2023 at 02:43#8525600 likes
What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?
I have posted something like this before.
I have lived through many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- the 1973 oil crisis caused by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
- acid rain
- ozone depletion
- an impending ice age
- Halley's comet
- the Large Hadron Collider
- the Y2K bug
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- Covid
- etc
My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change.
MerkwurdichliebeNovember 12, 2023 at 03:30#8525710 likes
My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change.
I understand, self inflicted decimation, so that even if all the models turned out to be entirely accurate, so that the current green revolution were the perfect solution, we will have weakened ourselves in the global arena so much that there is little hope of enforcing the green agenda on the will-be global hegemons that care little for our green agenda.
The vast majority of humanity was affected by unusual heat over this 12-month period, researchers found, with 7.3 billion people — 90% of the global population — experiencing at least 10 days of high temperatures “with very strong climate fingerprints.”
In India, 1.2 billion people — 86% of the population — experienced at least 30 days of high temperatures, made at least three times more likely by climate change. In the United States, that figure was 88 million people, or 26% of the population.
Some cities were particularly hard hit. In the US, these were concentrated in the South and Southwest. Houston experienced the longest extreme heat streak of any major city on Earth, according to the report, with 22 consecutive days of extreme heat between July and August.
Can we discount spite as a reasonable response? Might spite not be called for in certain situations?
My main question is: What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?
I think this would be entirely to convenient. A nice and easy self-absolution.
If there are greater existential threats, then of course we would have to fight them concurrently. Of course since climate change is heavily bound up with our economic system, we'd need to be doing that regardless.
Spite is the easy way out. Masking your own unwillingness to act by pointing to the hypocrisy of others.
What if the problem of climate change has less to do with human caused carbon emissions, and more to do with the natural phenomenon of human conflict, transgression, &c.? Could science even measure that?
Then we'd try to address that. Certainly the problem of climate change goes beyond simply making a few personal choices. It's a systemic issue. But starting from the perspective that it is some metaphysical force that cannot be addressed anyways is again a very convenient way to justify one's one comfortable inactions.
My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change
But the earth and humanity are already being decimated. It seems very silly to cling to this specific status quo as if it were suddenly the divine providence, as opposed to just another contingent situation we find ourselves in.
I understand, self inflicted decimation, so that even if all the models turned out to be entirely accurate, so that the current green revolution were the perfect solution, we will have weakened ourselves in the global arena so much that there is little hope of enforcing the green agenda on the will-be global hegemons that care little for our green agenda.
Are you under the impression that the western way of life currently stands any chance of surviving? Because I don't. Right now, the authoritarian, technocratic vision, which in some ways is being pioneered by China, is clearly winning. And this is not just a case of "China taking over" but of an inability to envision an alternative to clearly falling systems.
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2023 at 10:34#8526340 likes
My main question is: What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?
There is no 'if' about it. The greatest threat to humanity is the collapse of the economy. The new industrial revolution combining 3d printing and AI mean that mass production and consumption are becoming unnecessary, as a means to wealth and power. The mass of humanity entirely lacks the wisdom to control the economy, and so mass production and consumption - and hence the mass of humanity - will end. The failure to tackle climate change is just a convenient means to accelerate things a little. "Keep calm and carry on", is all we know how to do, like our cousins the lemmings.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 16, 2023 at 04:43#8536480 likes
‘The science is irrefutable’: US warming faster than global average, says report
This headline is misleading because it creates the impression that the US is warming faster than other countries.
The fact is that almost every country is warming faster than the global average. The reason is that the global average includes the oceans which cover about 70% of the earth, and they are warming slower and less than the land.
Is this headline intended to cause fear and anxiety?
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 16, 2023 at 04:52#8536490 likes
‘Insanity’: petrostates planning huge expansion of fossil fuels, says UN report
The world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, a UN report has found. Experts called the plans “insanity” which “throw humanity’s future into question”.
The energy plans of the petrostates contradicted their climate policies and pledges, the report said. The plans would lead to 460% more coal production, 83% more gas, and 29% more oil in 2030 than it was possible to burn if global temperature rise was to be kept to the internationally agreed 1.5C. The plans would also produce 69% more fossil fuels than is compatible with the riskier 2C target.
The countries responsible for the largest carbon emissions from planned fossil fuel production are India (coal), Saudi Arabia (oil) and Russia (coal, oil and gas). The US and Canada are also planning to be major oil producers, as is the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is hosting the crucial UN climate summit Cop28, which starts on 30 November.
This headline is misleading because it creates the impression that the US is warming faster than other countries.
Taken out of context, it might appear to be, but the article provides further detail. The associated report was the work of 'an exhaustive distillation of climate science compiled by more than 750 experts across the US federal government'.
The report shows “more and more people are experiencing climate change right now, right outside their windows”, said Allison Crimmins, a climate scientist and director of the National Climate Assessment. Crimmins said that escalating dangers from wildfires, severe heat, flooding and other impacts mean that the US suffers a disaster costing at least $1bn in damages every three weeks now, on average, compared to once every four months in the 1980s. ....
Scientists who worked on the 32-chapter report, which touches on everything from climate change’s impact upon the oceans to agriculture to transportation to cultural practices, say that scientific confidence about the influence of global heating upon extreme weather and other phenomena has only strengthened since the last report in 2018. ...
The report’s findings include:
* The climate crisis is causing disruption to all regions of the US, from flooding via heavier rainfall in the north-east to prolonged drought in the south-west. A constant is heat – “across all regions of the US, people are experiencing warming temperatures and longer-lasting heatwaves” – with nighttime and winter temperatures rising faster than daytime and summer temperatures.
* People’s health is already being harmed by worsened air quality from smog, wildfire smoke, dust and increased pollen, as well as from extreme weather events and the spread of infectious diseases. Children born in 2020 will be exposed to far more climate-related hazards compared to people born in 1965.
* There are “profound changes” underway in the water cycle, raising the risk of flooding, drought and degraded water supplies for people in the US. Snow cover in mountains is decreasing, while the nation’s supply of groundwater is under threat from warming temperatures.
I don't think it's 'alarmist'. I think it's alarming. As to why the US, in particular, is exposed to such effects, there might be geographical, topological and climatic reasons for the impact on the US in particular, but I guess one would have to read the report to find out.
unenlightenedNovember 16, 2023 at 09:58#8536890 likes
Is this headline intended to cause fear and anxiety?
Of course it is. Headlines are designed to grab your attention, by evoking some emotion.
It is a tragedy that because such manipulation has been going on for a century and more, we have learned to ignore these things as the exaggeration has become wilder and wilder. The same thing happens with fire alarms. Too many false alarms result in folk ignoring them when the fire is real. Thus a whole academic discipline of climate scientists and Earth science researchers end up being treated like a hysterical headline writer.
Reply to unenlightened
The collapse you describe in the economy is not such a big threat. It will be painful and might required decades of authoritarianism and revolution. Or even a collapse in civilisation. But the threat from climate change is existential. Anyone who has looked into it realises this and usually refrains from telling others for fear of becoming a doom monger.
The collapse you describe in the economy is not such a big threat. It will be painful and might required decades of authoritarianism and revolution. Or even a collapse in civilisation. But the threat from climate change is existential.
The economic collapse is part of climate change, just because the economy is predicated on the eternal expansion of fossil fuel consumption and waste dumping . When the burgers run out the white man will get angry. Angry toddler with nuclear arsenal may not wait for the seas to close over his head.
The economic collapse is part of climate change, just because the economy is predicated on the eternal expansion of fossil fuel consumption and waste dumping . When the burgers run out the white man will get angry. Angry toddler with nuclear arsenal may not wait for the seas to close over his head.
I've been pondering for years the way the present situation is similar to the world prior to the collapse of the Bronze Age. One expert, Eric Cline, believes the end of the Bronze age was brought about by a "perfect storm" of factors including war, natural disasters, and class warfare internal to the great nations of the time. Any one of them would have been survivable, but together, they weren't. What I disagree with is the notion that the coming collapse, if there is one, will mean the end of the human species. I mean, it could, but there isn't reason to believe it has to.
One of the things that was spawned by the Bronze Age collapse is the very thing we all think is killing us now: the free market economy. The seeds of what we are were created in that event. My guess is the same will happen again: the collapse will spawn a new human species who will one day discover where they came from, as we only discovered the Bronze Age in the 20th Century.
By the way, the book of Genesis is basically made up of mythology from the Bronze Age, although it's splintered and rearranged. The Old Testament is a link to that lost world. I wonder what myths of our own will survive.
Reply to frank Civilisation collapse is an interesting topic. There is evidence of them imploding, over exploiting resources or succumbing to disease. In the case of easter Island, they became extinct.
I doubt very much that any of these means would wipe out humanity. That would require a significant natural intervention, like an asteroid, or rapid changes in the global conditions. However I consider our current bloated civilisation(in terms of numbers) to be more vulnerable than smaller cases.
The issue with climate change is the consequences of a rapid mass extinction, or the rapid changes that would result from a runaway climate change process. These would both impact simultaneously and I doubt if humanity would survive. Although some mammals might survive, or vertebrates at least.
If mammals survived humanity would evolve again.
In the event that we mitigated climate change rapidly and managed to reverse it to some extent, we might just hang on. Although this would depend on the extinction event to be quite limited and the runaway affects of climate change were slowed sufficiently for us and nature to adapt.
In the event that we mitigated climate change rapidly and managed to reverse it to some extent, we might just hang on. Although this would depend on the extinction event to be quite limited and the runaway affects of climate change were slowed sufficiently for us and nature to adapt.
I haven't seen any scientists talk about "runaway climate change." I don't even know what that's supposed to be. There are positive and negative feedback loops, there are tipping points, but no runaway. The earth has been much hotter than it will be with anthropogenic climate change, and so we know what that looks like.
And if humans were wiped out, I'd put my money on insect supercolonies to evolve into a new form of life. Just as we're made up of individual cells, they'll be made up of individual organisms. That would be cool.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 16, 2023 at 19:53#8538220 likes
And if humans were wiped out, I'd put my money on insect supercolonies to evolve into a new form of life. Just as we're made up of individual cells, they'll be made up of individual organisms. That would be cool.
I would put my money on bacteria. Bacteria have always ruled to earth, and always will rule the earth.
Bacteria love global warming. They would like temperatures to be about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Then they can reproduce at their optimum rate, replicating once every 20 minutes.
unenlightenedNovember 16, 2023 at 19:57#8538250 likes
What I disagree with is the notion that the coming collapse, if there is one, will mean the end of the human species. I mean, it could, but there isn't reason to believe it has to.
That is about where I am. A lot depends on all those tipping points and positive and negative feedbacks as well as what humans do in the next couple of decades. A runaway hothouse scenario is possible that would eliminate almost all complex land based life. 6°C is more possible, and would be unspeakably bad. But there is no precedent, so nobody knows.
Reply to frank It may be out of date terminology these days. Or climate scientists don’t mention it because it’s too scary and might be counterproductive to efforts to raise awareness of the issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
Yes insects could inherit the earth. It largely depends on which animals become extinct and which survive. It may only be bacteria though if the warming gets to much.
unenlightenedNovember 17, 2023 at 22:24#8541370 likes
Here's a handy summary of roughly how very fucked we are and why we are not going to be unfucked by science magic or very stable geniuses.
It may be out of date terminology these days. Or climate scientists don’t mention it because it’s too scary and might be counterproductive to efforts to raise awareness of the issues.
I see. But that article says there is no chance it could happen on earth right now. It said that in a few billion years when the sun is hotter, it would be possible.
Here's a handy summary of roughly how very fucked we are and why we are not going to be unfucked by science magic or very stable geniuses.
My father was an esteemed professor of medicine and one of the generation of doctors that introduced birth control to civilisation. He read the Club of Rome report which was famously pessimistic about the future of Western civilisation. He was utterly convinced that India would face mass starvation and economic collapse in his lifetime (he died in 1993), hence his interest in birth control programs in India. He had a rather pessimist outlook, although his public persona was never dour or negative. But, in any case, he was wrong. Some unexpected developments came along that completely changed living standards in India. One was the ‘green revolution’ which dramatically improved crop yields. Another was the ‘tech revolution’ which gave hundreds of millions of Indians a pathway out of subsistence farming and into middle-class technologically-enabled lifestyles. So I agree that the world is facing vast challenges, but trying to resist doomsayers, on that account. (By the way, a provocative book on the subject is John Michael Greer’s Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush.)
Reply to frank I noticed that, they are talking about all the water on the planet boiling off into space.
I didn’t mean to be that alarmist.
What I was thinking of by runaway is when the tipping points and feedback loops become triggered and fall like dominoes. Releasing, (or stop removing) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which dwarfs the amount we have been releasing by burning fossil fuels. Once that point is reached life will become very tumultuous and difficult.
I don’t think we can know what that means. But what we do know is sea level will rise more rapidly to a maximum of over 90 metres. Ocean ecosystems will collapse, most land ecosystems will be under extreme stress, many will collapse. Growing enough food to feed the population will become impossible. And this will last, or get worse for thousands of years.
unenlightenedNovember 18, 2023 at 10:18#8542250 likes
This video is out of date. The climate has got worse, the political situation has also got worse. Extinction rebellion has failed. Emissions are still increasing.
During the European dark ages, there were times when monasteries were like fortresses, protecting the last vestiges of civilization Europe had left. If you wanted to see a library, they only existed in the monasteries.
I'm guessing it will be that way for a while. Who knows what will follow from there. Something really cool probably.
Reply to frank Yes, that sounds about right. I was thinking of three fortresses. North America, Europe and the region of China. The rest of the world would be cut loose.
Hopefully nuclear bombs won’t be thrown into the mix.
Reply to frank Fingers crossed they won’t.
I see Russia as a failed state now. I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.
I agree. A million years from now the surface of the earth will be covered in a swirling mist that is basically Russia waiting for some aliens to visit so it can morph itself into their form and confuse the hell out of everybody.
People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life.
You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
(See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.
Agree-to-DisagreeNovember 25, 2023 at 01:25#8560410 likes
Reply to unenlightened Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?
What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?
Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).
unenlightenedNovember 29, 2023 at 11:16#8571310 likes
Why did they write in the article about 'artificially' raising oil demand?
Probably because they're a bunch of conspiracy theorists a doom merchants. Unless the policy was a secret one that directly contradicted their public commitments on climate or something complicated like that.
unenlightenedDecember 03, 2023 at 10:50#8582150 likes
Then you really don't know what you're talking about, and I suggest taking literally 10 minutes, type in "climate change" in Google, pick one result -- whether from NASA or NOAA or the Royal Academy or MIT or anything you like -- and read about it. Because you're making an utter buffoon of yourself.
Not at all, no. I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. I'm open to reasons and discussions, but i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. I'm not going to accept a 'well, you're a monster' then type response as meaningful.
I would also suggest perhaps not positing someone is a 'buffoon' for not sharing your moral intuitions :) Particular as I would also note it appears old mate is being fairly glib. The air conditioning comment can't really be taken seriously and I don't read it as intended to be more than a poke of the bear.
and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action.
It's a moot point. China is presently in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants, so there really isn't any global action to take. Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation.
I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action.
Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention to everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.
There’s simply too much information to summarize, and because I’ve done so several times I have little interest in doing so again, especially to silly comments like the one you quoted (as probably just “poking the bear” — why anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know). So what I do is ask that you check out what these sources have you say about the warming planet and what it means for biodiversity and human life.
We’re seeing the damages already. Depending on how things go — meaning how hot it gets — we face either a very changed but perhaps manageable world to a catastrophe that could make life either a living hell or wipe out human life completely.
It’s not about intuitions, it’s about facts. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed— nor is that we should do something about it. True, you may not care— fine. That doesn’t change what’s happening, nor what will happen (e.g., biodiversity loss, icecap melt, agricultural disruption, massive coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, famine, droughts, etc.) if it continues without efforts to decrease and eventually negate emissions.
I’ll repost a prior article of mine that outlines some of the evidence, below.
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention t or everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.
You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. Respectfully. This is obviously something that ignites a serious passion in you, and that's admirable.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
Exactly. That is your opinion. It is not mine, despite likely agreeing on the basics of the 'facts' of the matter. Though, i appreciate you taking this route instead of trying to assert that my lack of moral alarm is somehow indicative of psychopathy :P
You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that.
I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from, and how it's informing your passion to encourage others to essentially hold the same moral outlook at yourself. But my 'point' is more that i think it's misguided to be so certain in your moral reactions, as to allow yourself to denigrate others on that basis. Particularly over a joke :P
You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take.
First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. But so be it— it’s true I’m not always nice.
One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions
You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. (Here I’m referring to what the consequences of warming are, which are well established — but even if they weren’t, I don’t see how anyone can justify not caring about the possibility. Ditto nuclear war.)
I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from
Well I do make the assumption that rational human beings care about themselves, their kids and grandkids, and generally the survival of the human species. I fully acknowledge there are some that don’t. But generally those people are labeled psychopaths and are relatively rare.
So it’s not that we “should” care — I assume it’s a given. I don’t say “you SHOULD care about your kids”, I assume it when talking to a parent. If someone were to ask, “Why are you so certain that I SHOULD care about my kids?” I wouldn’t really know how to respond pragmatically.
First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange.
Hi mate,
Just to preface this, because it's going to come across slightly combative, I have no skin in this argument. I accept the facts about anthropocentric climate change (despite your assertion; more below). and have no problem with you, or you holding your views. I in fact called them admirable. I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. So, that disclaimer in place...
I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
I generally don't check dates on posts. I see things i find interesting and reply :) Apologies if that's not your jam! Genuinely; folk do stuff differently. It wasn't personal at all. As none other of my comments are!!
You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really.
This is both not in any way inferable from having a different moral reaction, and it is in fact, counter to the truth. As i've noted, I understand and accept, basically, the 'mainstream' line on anthropocentric climate change. You do not need to posit all these empirical differences to account for our moral differences. This somewhat encapsulates why your take makes me both chuckle, and want to prod a bit. If your assertion is that one requires an in-depth, technical knowledge of climate change science to form a valid moral response to it, I'm just off the bus a few stops back. That's all. But..
It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense.
If that is not the case, forgive, but that is exactly what you are illustrating above. Your assertion that my non-denial is 'because' I don't know the facts is just plain ridiculous, though. So even with my potential error in your thought, what you've said is the kind of unsupportable position I'm trying to deal with in the previous paragraph...
I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.”
It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense.
True, you could have an accurate account, knowing full well what’s in store for humanity if we do nothing, and simply don’t care — in which case, you’re not ignorant, you’re just a psychopath. But I prefer my approach of assuming you aren’t, but rather haven’t fully grasped the consequences of 3 or 4 degrees of warming. That’s not at all invalid— in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part.
I can look at nuclear weapons and go “eh, my intuitions tell me we don’t really need to do much about this,” but is that valuable in any way? Who cares about intuitions? We’re dealing with reality. What you appear to be saying is “I don’t think there will be many consequences to climate change— the facts are unsettled on that issue— and so I feel little moral impetus to do anything about it.” I’m saying you’re factually wrong, and that if you were better informed of the consequences you wouldn’t feel that way anymore— provided you’re relatively normal.
Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance.
Sure, and I did thank you for not taking the 'latter' route :) . But, neither is required or inferable. Both speak a bit more to the shakiness of your conviction, to a third party. Morals just differ... Whether that's 'correct' ethically isn't the question here. There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.
But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.”
I would say, yes, and i would even ascribe 'ignorance' to the commenter. But this is exactly what I intuited, and described - his lack of interest isn't buffoonery anymore than you're not being interested in why I don't care is *shrug*. I would say pointless, though. Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking.
No. I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. If your form of deduction rests on such a wild black and white fallacy, i think you're charge of buffoonery might be more than a little ironic ;)
There are so many assumptions on your position it's hard to tease apart without sounding like an utter wanker.
What do you infer by 'care about'? How do you ascribe this to non-persons? I am an anti-natalist. Does that explain your lack of understanding of position? Because psychopathy isn't on the table anymore, for you.
Its not fair, reasonable or anything other than a protection of your emotional investment. Sunk-fallacy and all that.
You've a world-view that allows for only two options with regard to an adequate understanding of climate change:
1. One knows about climate change adequately, and cares the same way you do;
2. One knows about climate change adequately, and is a psychopath
There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.
In this case, there is. Again, assuming the person isn’t one who cares nothing about others. Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. They simply don’t know how serious the matter is— hence, ignorance.
I’m ignorant of plenty of things, and my ignorance has caused harm I’m sure. That’s on me. But had I known differently, I wouldn’t have said or done what I did. Why? Because I really do care about other people. My remarks online, for example, may be far more hurtful than I realize. But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. If I were to fully know just how harmful they could be, however, I almost certainly wouldn’t say them.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction.
I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person.
Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny— as if morals are simply “I like Mozart, you like Beethoven”. I’m not that interested in discussing moral relativism. We’re dealing with a real problem in the real world— not an academic debate on ethics. Global warming is a threat to humanity and if we don’t do something about it it will inflict real pain on real people, both present and future generations. Your simply “not caring” about that is your business. Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true.
Hmm.. I think I see what you're trying to establish - putting the glibness aside, I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back(I would also posit those things are a result of a lack of impulse control, rather than an actual intention to do those things actively, as it were).
You're conflating actions (readily understood to represent a defect (though, I would argue its not a moral defect, but a neurological defect per above hypothesis)), and a mere moral difference of opinion. (be careful not to jump forward to actions from here... they may be inferred, but not entailed. I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway). I don't have any particular view on actions being taken - Could be good to do so, might not be.
There, unequivocally, is not. You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy.
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this.
Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns.
Hmm, again, that's just your position. Nothing more, nothing less, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone but you. There is absolutely nothing factual, objective, or verifiable about that claim.
So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism.
Perhaps. But that is a far cry from your position elsewhere, even in this same post. I also pointed out i'm an anti-natalist. A fully valid position that results in my not really caring about this issue. No nihilism required. I still very much enjoy my life when i can, and appreciate that those around me also do. I recommend Rivka Weinberg on this particular topic and how it doesn't denote any kind of anti-social attitude.
But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway.
This is true - and I am not denying there are swathes of (lol) denialists who come to the same conclusion as I (emotionally speaking) or, more importantly, an actively negative position on combating CC, but deny the base facts of your position (i.e moral reaction). So, we've got at least three distinct positions - none of which require psychopathy to be inferred. Assuming what you mean is nihilism, that's not required either as outlined above.
I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person.
You might want to pull back from using examples that are readily distinguishable. I'm not going to answer to this one. The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. That's a rather silly and kafka-esque illustration to my mind.
Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny
Scrutinize all you want. That's actually what we're doing here. I've rejected one black and white fallacy around the position. and in fact, semi-accepted one other. That's all. The discussion is on going.
Ive denied only the logical inference of psychopathy from differing morals. That's ...absolutely fine.
Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
That is exactly what you are doing. Your emotional reaction is causing you to make wild speculations about another person's mental state - because you cannot fathom the possibility that the amount of time and effort you've sunk into this topic might be relatively unimportant (see, i can do it too!).
Neither my take there, or yours, is in any way reasonable. We do not disagree about hte facts. We have a different moral reaction within the bounds of general human cognition. I am not alone, and I am not even on the fringes in this. If you're seriously suggesting there is only one allowable moral reaction to the climate crisis, I cannot continue taking you seriously.
I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back
Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.
i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it.
So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.
You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy.
There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this.
Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.
So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.
The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis.
Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.
Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology.
— Mikie
It isn't, So there we are
It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?
In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.
Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?
Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
— Mikie
That is exactly what you are doing.
No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:
No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:
Suffice to say I cannot understand how it is even possible, without what I've asserted, that you're appealing to feelings to support your position - whcih is exactly what you've done. However, the below... So, adieu :)
At risk of this being another round of redundant talking past each other... (so, forgive if i bow out quickly. I can see it's not the best use of time if that does occur)
To which we can clearly see you're having an emotional reaction
Do you not see Mikie calling someone a buffoon as an emotional reaction? Because to me it is one without doubt, and if you do not agree we have no further to discuss. The premises we're on aren't the same. I could accept my response is emotional in the sense that it irked me that Mikie is so intensely convinced of his moral correctness, yes treats others with moral disregard. Noticing things is naturally an emotional process.
So, from my perspective, to deny that would be a patent disregard for the facts of the matter. It is a personal attack, not an attack on the argument. Though, I note it doesn't reach the ad hominem level. I guess this just isn't an issue. Pretending his response was not emotional, but my noting it was, is incoherent.
Kasperanza's rhetoric is completely overturned by science
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Based on only the comments that have been addressed, his position isn't one on the science. It's one on the moral status of the facts of the matter (given you both are saying his 'facts of hte matter' are counter to science, I defer, but it's not all that relevant as I never addressed that in any way whatsoever and so responding to it misses me completely). The comments i've addressed could well be in light of accepting the entire mainstream position, including recommendations on combatting CC. If that's not his intention, sure, but this just further supports my intuition that Mikie's responses are confused emotional comments about something I never claimed or addressed.
I simply said calling someone a buffoon might not be hte best idea. It isn't. Clearly.
You're turning it into a debate about the morality of change being either good or bad.
That is exactly not what I did. My entire position rests on change being neither good nor bad without an arbitrary framework to measure it against(and I refrain from choosing one, basically. Could be A-moral i guess). If that isn't clear, I apologise, but i'm unable to formulate a version of what I've said earlier more clearly if that is the case. A failing on my part. But, regardless of that failing, it is entirely counter to reality to pretend I'm making any kind of moral argument about climate change.
Doesn't over turn the science though, that science by independent neutral organizations, not the "science" funded to find counter arguments against climate change, which indicates terrible consequences if solutions, necessarily, aren't found and met.
At no stage did I even tangentially intimate that I was anywhere near denying any of the science around anthropocentric climate change. I actually actively acknowledge it, and my, let's say trust, in it, multiple times. I also observed Mikie's position as admirable. I actually called the situation a crisis at one point. If that doesn't indicate an emotional state that is in line with Mikie's, im unsure what would. I simply reject his moral position and find nothing convincing in his warblings about it.
Further, and contrary to your assertion, Mikie was, in fact, arguing that for me to hold the position I hold, i must be suffering some kind of defect of humanity (his initial formulation was to charge me with psychopathy. Laughable in many ways, not worth addressing further. I've dealt with it). So, at-base I'm unsure where this is relevant, unless you're (maybe accidentally) actually responding to Kasperanza. Though, in that case, I suppose i can ignore it. He may well have been saying untrue, or misleading, or wilfully ignorant things ( in fact, i would agree, it's just not relevant)
Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else.
Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else.
The irony burns.
Hi again Vaskane,
It seems you're under a false impession about my part in this exchange. Very well may be my doing, though so i apologise - and i will note that as i go. But it is entirely wrong to say that I care much at all about the 'buffoon' issue. It is minor, uninteresting and a passing comment in my initial response. You might see my response as emotional - sure - but it was mild, and in passing.
What is substantive, and on which, Mikie and I actually exchanged, is the moral valence of caring, or not caring (to different degrees, i can assume) about the climate crisis (and nominally, what to do about it).
I disagree that not caring is objectively immoral. Mikie thinks it is. That's the disagreement. It is not emotional. It is not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of my subjective position vs his attempt to make it objectively immoral... about whether "I don't really care about climate change" is a statement illustrating immorality. I disagree, he appears to think it does, regardless of any potential objections. So, up front, I want to make that extremely clear. I don't give a monkey's about any ongoing discussion to do with 'buffoon' in this thread. It was a throwaway comment, though one I agree with still.
Of course it's an emotional reaction, but that doesn't make it a fallacy. It's okay to express emotions in arguments. It's an emotional reaction that I happen to agree with.
Fair enough, certainly can't argue with this; totally reasonable. As noted, it didn't reach ad hominem - but I didn't attempt to claim it was a fallacy or ad hominem. I merely suggested it would be better not to. Which I, subjectively, think is the case. That's all I'll say about this.
The facts of the matter aren't about moral correctness. There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change.
Hmm... I readily (even in the comment you're responding to) agreed. Unsure if you've missed that this was not the subject of our exchange(as outline in my preamble), from my perspective, and as I tried to point out multiple times. If i failed, that's on me. But let this be clarity there, in any case.
I don't see anywhere in his sentiments that detail right and wrong in the sense of "Good" and "Evil," again Mikie is saying the guy is acting being a fool for disregarding the science.
Hmm, fair enough in the face of taking that 'buffoon' element of the exchange as major I have no problem with that; you're more than welcome to hold that view with no objection for me... But, because to me it was extremely minor, I have no idea why you're/he are fixated on the way I communicated about his emotional response. Seems hypocritical (and ironic, considering Mikie's last little bit of immature nonsense just there is exactly a gripe about communication, while accusing me of same...wild). But that said, it also doesn't bother me, just seems odd.
The substantive exchange, and the 'gripe', for my part was directly related to his (in my view) asserting my moral response to (the established facts of) Climate Change have a definite, inarguable moral value in the negative. The 'buffoon' disagreement was very much secondary and unimportant to my mind. If it didn't come across that way, again, apologies for not achieving enough clarity.
It would be like you going to the doctor and finding out the science indicates you've an aggressive cancer, possibly too late to cure, but there is still a chance to rid your body of it should you act now, and you choose ignoring their findings, like "oh well, I don't have cancer, I feel relatively fine."
Its not at all like that to my mind, but taking it as an analogy, sure. Still, there is no moral content in either that reaction, or an extremely cautious one. Those just are the two reactions we've chosen to discuss. Mikie thinks otherwise. That's the conflict.
I rest my point, Mikie isn't making a moral argument about "Right" or "Wrong."
Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha?
I'm not engaging with a complete ignorance of that fact (assuming you've read the exchange). Otherwise, thank you for a rather pleasant exchange.
Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha?
Some people just need to scream abusively at someone else. It doesn't really matter why. I guess that could be analyzed out as having to do with self-righteousness, but it's more likely that they received that kind of abuse in childhood and it's now cycling. The drama is hidden. All you see is the screaming.
There is no morality involved in Mikie's defense of the science, he's merely saying if you wanna be a self deceiving buffoon and deny the science, go right ahead, but all it takes is a quick 5 second search to return loads of neutral non biased science in support of climate change.
We already see effects scientists predicted, such as the loss of sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, sea level rise, and more intense heat waves.
Scientists predict global temperature increases from human-made greenhouse gases will continue. Severe weather damage will also increase and intensify.
Some changes (such as droughts, wildfires, and extreme rainfall) are happening faster than scientists previously assessed. In fact, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the United Nations body established to assess the science related to climate change — modern humans have never before seen the observed changes in our global climate, and some of these changes are irreversible over the next hundreds to thousands of years.
Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for many decades, mainly due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities.
So, the Earth's average temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 20th century. What's the big deal?
The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, published in 2021, found that human emissions of heat-trapping gases have already warmed the climate by nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since 1850-1900.1 The global average temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5 degrees C (about 3 degrees F) within the next few decades. These changes will affect all regions of Earth.
The severity of effects caused by climate change will depend on the path of future human activities. More greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet. However, those future effects depend on the total amount of carbon dioxide we emit. So, if we can reduce emissions, we may avoid some of the worst effects.
"The scientific evidence is unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. Any further delay in concerted global action will miss the brief, rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Future effects of global climate change in the United States:
Here are some of the expected effects of global climate change on the United States, according to the Third and Fourth National Climate Assessment Reports.
U.S. Sea Level Likely to Rise 1 to 6.6 Feet by 2100
Global sea level has risen about 8 inches (0.2 meters) since reliable record-keeping began in 1880. By 2100, scientists project that it will rise at least another foot (0.3 meters), but possibly as high as 6.6 feet (2 meters) in a high-emissions scenario. Sea level is rising because of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms.
Hurricanes Will Become Stronger and More Intense
Scientists project that hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates will increase as the climate continues to warm.
More Droughts and Heat Waves
Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense and less frequent.
Longer Wildfire Season
Warming temperatures have extended and intensified wildfire season in the West, where long-term drought in the region has heightened the risk of fires. Scientists estimate that human-caused climate change has already doubled the area of forest burned in recent decades. By around 2050, the amount of land consumed by wildfires in Western states is projected to further increase by two to six times. Even in traditionally rainy regions like the Southeast, wildfires are projected to increase by about 30%.
Changes in Precipitation Patterns
Climate change is having an uneven effect on precipitation (rain and snow) in the United States, with some locations experiencing increased precipitation and flooding, while others suffer from drought. On average, more winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century.
Frost-Free Season (and Growing Season) will Lengthen
The length of the frost-free season, and the corresponding growing season, has been increasing since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen, which will affect ecosystems and agriculture.
Global Temperatures Will Continue to Rise
Summer of 2023 was Earth's hottest summer on record, 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (0.23 degrees Celsius (C)) warmer than any other summer in NASA’s record and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980.
Arctic Is Very Likely to Become Ice-Free
Sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean is expected to continue decreasing, and the Arctic Ocean will very likely become essentially ice-free in late summer if current projections hold. This change is expected to occur before mid-century.
But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.
But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.
It is now patently clear you’re communicating in bad faith.
Take care buddy.
Deleted userDecember 21, 2023 at 07:48#8636000 likes
It is too late. You must go into the cage and eat the bugs to save the planet.
On another note, Taylor Swift is coming to New Zealand next month.
Deleted userDecember 21, 2023 at 07:55#8636020 likes
As a point of curiosity, do you know the difference between a superheated vapour and a saturated vapour?
unenlightenedDecember 21, 2023 at 10:42#8636320 likes
Reply to Deleted user WRT water, at a given pressure and temperature below the boiling point, the partial pressure of water vapour in the atmosphere reaches an equilibrium between evaporation and condensation known as saturation.
At the boiling point the saturation point becomes 100%, and above that point the vapour is superheated. (From ancient memory. You might want to check and correct a bit.) It is the result of the wretched internet, that implied adhoms are the first recourse of the wilfully ignorant.
There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world.
The acceptance of this as fact, involves first a shock and fear, and then a great mourning of the loss of a way of life and an imagined future. No more green and pleasant land, no more 2 .4 children, no more universal foreign holidays, the end of accumulation and consumption without limit. So of course the people who point this out become targets because shooting the messenger always works. This whole thing is @Mikie's fault, because he is insisting on things we don't want to be true.
When I was growing up, a government leaflet was sent to every household in the UK to explain what to do in a Nuclear war. Something about putting tape on the windows and hiding under the table with a bottle of water. We just hoped no one would press the button. But Climate change is not optional, we have already pressed the button, been pressing it for a Century and are knowingly keeping it fully pressed and even pressing harder. This is the despair behind the denial. This is the self-hatred that becomes hated of the World. This is wishing Gaza on the whole of humanity.
I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing.
[quote=Grateful Dead]The bottles stand as empty
As they were filled before
Time there was and plenty
But from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all
I still might warn a few
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools[/quote]
The climate grift is just a lightning rod designed to keep your attention fixed on a problem that, supposedly, we are all responsible for, while keeping your attention away from problems that have clearly discernable causes, usually involving powerful lobbies and a lot of money.
When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?
There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world.
Reply to frank Like with all things (and good grifts) there's a core of truth somewhere to be found. That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short).
Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.
Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.
There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world.
If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.
If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.
It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, and definitely not grift.
And the scattergun adhom epithets you are using are exactly what it explains. You have to defend your way of life. But you'll come around, or die in denial, I don't much care which.
But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end,
I'm not. I'm under the impression that most of the world's mega cities are coastal and low-lying and will therefore be subject to major flooding within a century and in some cases within a couple of decades. The millions of resulting climate refugees will overwhelm the ability of governments to cope and a breakdown of civil society will almost certainly result. This will be exacerbated by a continuing decline in global food production, desertification and the added involuntary mass migrations that will result. Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. And it will not stop there, but continue to get worse.
But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift
It's been making excellent click bait for thousands of years. 'Course one of these days they're going to be right. :grin:
unenlightenedDecember 21, 2023 at 19:05#8637660 likes
Reply to frank You're such a sucker, frank, responding to our clickbait all the time. If only there were adverts on this thread you'd be making us a fortune.alas I'm not smart enough to be a real grifter.
It's kind of weak though isn't it? We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. So where are all these successful doom laden grifters making their money from? It's a fantasy - there is no market for them or their doom, because the market has long been cornered by the apocalypse and rapture brigade. Mundane flood and famine is boring.
Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.
But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction (or even some kind of 'truth wrapped in a lie' take). I think, per a couple of other comments, its worth noting (entirely aside from the facts of the matter, which Mikie so aptly re-presents), there is inarguably a psycho-social element to the entire situation whereby some can fall into a pattern of behaviour around their beliefs which is satisfying in itself viz. othering those who don't either react the same way, or deny the facts. Both seem to me extremely unhelpful from either hte psychological or the physical facts angle. Group-think doesn't necessarily skew the facts, or at least not only the facts but the emotions too.
"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable?
Yes. Why would a climate apocalypse unfolding before our very eyes need to be "made more believable"?
Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.
Further, fearmongering and targeting children is a deliberate and grifty tactic.
Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this.
This also seems inarguable. More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment.
But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction
If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts.
If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts.
The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)
The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense).
The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. But toward the beginning of the thread Mikie warned that the earth will soon have a climate similar to that on Venus. I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say, tbh.
Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell.
It's not likely that humans will become extinct due to climate change. Could the present global system fall due to climate change? Sure. When exactly? Don't know. It will be the third large scale collapse since humans invented civilization.
We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis.
Exxon’s own scientists knew what was happening in the late 70s, and as has now been exhaustively documented, this was deliberately minimized and the scientists fired in favor of hiring the same “merchants of doubt” that tobacco companies used to sow doubt about smoking and lung cancer.
Massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry for decades. But it’s the climate scientists that are the “grifters.” And graphs are “esotheric knowledge.”
I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.
Same things being used here. It’s the only way people with no understanding of an issue can avoid any real substance (or work) and still feel like they’re contributing to the conversation somehow. The thread has been great in this respect — it’s like an intellectual fly trap. Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one.
Remember the calls for reducing nuclear weapons? Yeah — a grift. Because nuclear war never happened— and besides, it wouldn’t have been the END OF THE WORLD. A few people would probably survive. Check and mate.
I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.
This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. It's definitely a weak position for those who initially denied the facts, though but it an entirely legitimate position that allows for much action and seriousness, without taking and overwhelmingly cynical position of claiming the world is literally ending.
But on AOC, i'm not quite sure if you're trying to deny she said it, and in any case, it was glib, but here is the quote:
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"
and climate scientists reacting: https://www.axios.com/2019/01/22/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline
It is absolutely inarguable there is a degree of fantasist alarmism on that side of the issue, politically. AOC likening the CC to WWII is another rather bizarre example.
It is— and it’s been used for a long time. Hence why the term climate “alarmism” was invented and repeated ad nauseam within the conservative media bubble. Glad I used the example of AOC — I see you got sucked into that as well.
It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. I treat it the same way I would read the buffoons (forgive the accuracy) who claim nuclear war wouldn’t count as “existential” because people could potentially survive in some underground bunker. Nah, I’ll keep using “existential threat.” But thanks anyway.
Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word.
Just more denialism, in the end. They call it “delayism” now— but it’s all just denialism to me.
—
Just to take it out of the realm of chit-chat, where any imbecile can participate:
Imagine the level of a mind that hears “the world is facing an existential threat,” is given the overwhelming evidence, and chooses to ignore all of it in favor of screaming endlessly about how “existential” is technically the wrong word.
This isn't really a coherent thought experiment, but even reading in to it what you must mean, no one is doing that.
The evidence doesn't result in the world ending in 12 years. That's what's been discussed. Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. I stopped using twitter to get away from that.
I think the bolded is about as close to that meme of the dude crying behind his mask as i've seen on this forum.
His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)
But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith."
If you could please outline exactly how you deduced this, from my giving no notion of my view on either the quote, or the response, that would be nice. As far as i can tell, you have wholly invented a position on it/them, ascribed it to me, and then reacted to it. It is a fact that I didn't give mine, so .. logic dictates...
Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks. In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine.
unenlightenedDecember 21, 2023 at 23:20#8639640 likes
Reply to Mikie No Mikie, its about how you and I are grifters or grifter's suckers, or spouting pseudo-religious hooey, with uncouth agendas, and above all rude and therefore wrong about everything. It's all about us, because Climate change is unimportant.
Take this grifter, for example:
“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.
In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.
Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.
He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.
Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.
• irrelevant, there's no climate change
• there's climate change, and it has nothing to do with humans
• there's climate change, and it won't affect humans
• there's anthropogenic climate change, and nothing can done
• whatever the case, risk assessments are required before anything else (best-case, worst-case)
• there's climate change, and we know too little, need more conclusive research before anything else
• there's climate change, and whatever can be done should be done for the sake of future humans
• a far-reaching revolution is required immediately to deal with climate change
• mankind is doomed, deal with it, and go on about your business
• climate scientists/activists = grifters
Something else or some combination?
It's too easy/cheap to point at some isolated thing or peddle/suggest conspiracy theories. I'm fairly sure some of those sentiments above can be binned, and others not so much.
[sup]Related: human "footprints" all over (roads, cities, farms, factories, wars, waste), impressive (post-)industrialization fossil burnage, pollution all over the place,population growth, anthropogenic resource deprivation, biodiversity impairment,extinctions, nature/wildlife displacement, deforestation,renewability, ...[/sup]
Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.
Yes, "they" ("them", "the secret behind-the-scenes conspirators") deliberately chose her while "hiding in the shadows", due to their "ulterior motives". :D A vast conspiracy, at that. The ? comments are just another example of ad hominem in service of incorrigible faith.
EDIT: apparently forgot one above: • climate scientists/activists = grifters
“The huge human cost of the climate crisis is being ignored. We hear of disaster relief, but the long-term costs are not being addressed. We must provide lasting support for people impacted by climate change,” said Ian Fry, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change.
In his report to the Council, the Special Rapporteur outlined a six-point plan to address the human rights aspects of the problem.
Communities in vulnerable situations, including indigenous peoples, peasants, migrants, children, women, persons with disabilities and people living in small island developing States and least developed countries, are disproportionately at risk from adverse impacts of climate change, the UN expert said.
He also highlighted the many non-economic losses stemming from climate change and its consequences. “For instance, in countries where I have worked and visited in the Pacific for the last 20 years, people are witnessing the graves of their loved ones being washed out into the sea,” the expert said.
Fry noted that the key element of his plan would be to investigate the plight of people displaced by the impacts of climate change. The expert said that of 59.1 million people internally displaced in 2021 across the world, most were displaced by climate-related disasters. He noted that the number was far higher than displacement due to armed conflict.
How does this not sound extremely grifty?
People have had to deal with the effects of all kinds of change for as long as humanity has existed, but now there are people in need for "long-lasting support" and this bozo needs your money.
Subsidizing people for living in unsustainable conditions is a terrible idea, and I have no doubt a large part of that money would disappear into the pockets of, you guessed it, grifters.
If two centimeters of sea-level rise means you and your family are washed away, maybe think about moving. In fact, maybe you should have thought about moving yesterday. But even so, those two centimeters will take a couple decades - there's still time!
Treating people like children and helpless victims; it's a funny tendency within modern societies and apparently also in supranational organisations. Maybe a form of subconscious savior complex?
Personally, I'm a bit more cynical, as you might have guessed. This is grifty language, used to manipulate and guilt-trip people, which sadly is all too common in these forms of charity.
Deleted userDecember 22, 2023 at 13:35#8641740 likes
I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing.
I have to admit that you are into too many layers of irony for me to understand. Props where it is due.
That our care for the environment is lacking is pretty much self-evident, though personally I would put the emphasis elsewhere (microplastics, pesticides, etc. - pollution, in short).
That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. I say good, let artificial selection take its course.
The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024.
Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download
When there is no Ukraine, Israel, vaccine, or Iran hysteria to keep the people distracted from the issues of their country, you can always go back to climate hysteria.
That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times.
Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download
Yeah, No grifting involved at all there.
In 2001, ExxonMobil’s chief lobbyist successfully recommended that President George W. Bush’s administration choose Christy to review the submissions of the U.S. team contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report, an assignment that helped burnish his scientific credentials.
Exon Mobil lobbyists being unwavering seekers of truth and not at all partisan on such matters. He doesn't take their money, but he sure takes their lobbying on his behalf. but the reference has been very well trashed in any case over the years.
But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times.
Why do you think microplastics are killing us?
unenlightenedDecember 22, 2023 at 15:40#8642080 likes
We know for a fact that the tobacco industry worked very hard to hold back the science on the extent to which smoking was lethal.
We know that the oil industry has been doing the same thing over climate change.
Yet here is a bunch of clowns pretending that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists and windmill manufacturers. They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. And I am the one that is Quoting Deleted user
...into too many layers of irony for me to understand.
Deleted userDecember 22, 2023 at 17:38#8642290 likes
Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever.
They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science.
This is what I mean. Otherwise normal adults regress to the intellectual level of maybe an 8 or 9v year old when they hit this topic. And it’s an easy one to look at, because the evidence is overwhelming (and why the consensus is so high).
So it’s fun to see. You get either complete ignorance or conspiracy theories (also just ignorance) repeated from conservative circles — ie talking heads who are themselves parroting talking points from fossil industry lawyers and think tanks.
So it’s a hoax, a grift, an agenda, a scam, a religion. Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.
Deleted userDecember 22, 2023 at 17:47#8642320 likes
Sorry, I don't accept "epicclimatenews" as a source for someone "burnishing their scientific credentials", which is not something that happens because science is not a clergy, there is no one to be burn at a stake.
But keep pulling your hair for something out of your control because the news told you the world is ending. It is hilarious.
As an observation, everytime you mention Trump or Biden I skip over to the next paragraph. I do not care about your largely irrelevant "country".
What are you denying about Dr John Christy? That the research has been widely questioned? That it is a minority view among climate scientists? That ExonMobil lobbied on his behalf? That he used to be a missionary? Your blanket rejection is of no value without some reason and evidence.
Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever.
There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification.
unenlightenedDecember 22, 2023 at 20:14#8642530 likes
There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification.
That has little to do with inhaled or ingested plastics that are liable I imagine to clog things up and reduce absorption of oxygen and food respectively. but there's not a huge amount of research and a good deal of complacency. Just another uncontrolled experiment with the biosphere.
here's a summary: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/microplastics-long-legacy-left-behind-plastic-pollution
It's another unwanted pressure on an already critically stressed biosphere - not to mention the hormones that are an ever-present threat to the masculinity of the pure in cell.
Reply to unenlightened
Yes. Entities that do medical research take suggestions from the public, and I asked for that one: the effect of microplastics on the lungs.
unenlightenedDecember 22, 2023 at 20:31#8642560 likes
I remember when this was modern. All part of my indoctrination.
But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times.
I did a quick search in NY Times. Dozens of articles or opinion pieces on microplastics. Here's one I did not bother checking BBC, but I'm confident that you will find plenty as well.
It's a race to see how mankind will destroy this habitable planet we live on. Pollution vs. habitat destruction vs. climate change. Any one of these will be sufficient. My vote is on a combination.
But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times.
This is false. The NY Times is always banging on about microplastics, as in this Opinion essay earlier in the year: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/opinion/microplastics-health-environment.html
Hormones in food is more of a BBC thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/junk_food_brain
The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024.
The article to which you linked explained that one non-scientist official said something like this, but it's a popular misconception that he said or even implied that the underwater events would happen 'by 2000', and the predicted underwater events would affect very specific places, like Bangladesh.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 23, 2023 at 23:28#8645520 likes
When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?
Never. That is because the climate change doom cult is full of shit. And if they did actually talk about it, they would no doubt blame it on climate change so as to incite more alarmism.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 24, 2023 at 00:21#8645600 likes
Reply to Mikie Not to be too pessimistic, but in all realism the climate denial argument has shifted from a position of skepticism – which is now in the past – to being about action and practicality. If you really want to convince those in the thread, respond to the question,
"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?"
The problem of climate denial is with a system of individual libertarian mindedness, not any special content of scientific evidence. Evidence actually tends to exacerbate it through its individualistic apparatus and the Cartesian-Augustinian subject, where deniers and pushers represent the same ideological form. At present it seems persuasion is of social, representational, and psychological expense rather than to do with anything of the natural world.
Their message seems to be: "If the problem comes down to individual action, information, and knowledge, then why should I care?" In my view, it seems a reflection of two different materialistic interpretations of Kant vs Hegel in the realm of morality.
"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?"
Great post. The question you point to is a philosophical challenge covered by global warming text books. The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change.
Reply to frank What would you do if you had to either save two strangers or your wife or daughter? I'd choose wife or daughter. It's a question of the type of history that brings us to this moment of choice.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 24, 2023 at 07:10#8645970 likes
The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change.
That is because it is not something that is experienced. It is an "idea". And there is no moral imperative to believe or agree with an idea. If an idea cannot compel assent on the weight of its own merit but requires coercion and ridicule to enforce, there is an obvious problem with the idea, and a bigger problem with the people that want to impose ideology upon others.
unenlightenedDecember 24, 2023 at 09:39#8646030 likes
"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?"
"Why should I?" is the devil's question. If someone doesn't care about other people, they don't care what other people say. So there is no answer worth giving.
Humanity as a whole stands in judgement of itself, and it looks like our judgement is that we might as well die in our own shit. So it goes. I am rather sad about this, to the extent that I sometimes hide it in anger. Both equally futile reactions.
But I do wonder, if people really don't care about others, why they bother to come here and argue about all this, back and forth? It's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that they don't care, rather than just berate those of us that do care a little.
This isn't a question about caring for others at all.
Attempts to frame it as such is simply a transparent attempt at claiming a moral high ground by smearing the other side as being selfish and immoral. It's intellectual poverty.
unenlightenedDecember 24, 2023 at 09:54#8646060 likes
Reply to Tzeentch That would be a stronger argument if it were not the sceptics that framed it that way.
That is because it is not something that is experienced. It is an "idea". And there is no moral imperative to believe or agree with an idea. If an idea cannot compel assent on the weight of its own merit but requires coercion and ridicule to enforce, there is an obvious problem with the idea, and a bigger problem with the people that want to impose ideology upon others.
Read what you wrote as if you were talking about money. Money is a successful social technology. So is the legal apparatus that allows us to do rule of law. We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years.
What would you do if you had to either save two strangers or your wife or daughter? I'd choose wife or daughter. It's a question of the type of history that brings us to this moment of choice.
Exactly.
unenlightenedDecember 24, 2023 at 10:44#8646120 likes
We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years.
That's not entirely true. By and large, democratic governments cannot afford to look very seriously beyond the next election, but not everything is democratically controlled. The notion of aristocracy, on the other hand, unfashionable as it is, does rely on long-termism. Noblesse oblige. Thus in medieval times, multi generational projects like the construction of cathedrals were possible. The sense of lineage gives one a longer view that allows one to plant broadleaf woodland that will come to maturity in a couple of centuries, because there is a genuine feeling that one is not the owner, but the custodian of one's property. This might make sense to a Native American sensibility, but I suspect is entirely foreign to US culture.
I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the skepticism expressed in this thread at all.
Of course you don't. But if you look, you will find that climate science has been accused of "grift" of regiousity, of ... oh never mind, I cannot be bothered with fending off your projections any more.
?unenlightened None of that has anything to do with what I said, though.
So calling people grifters is not taking the moral high ground? Literally, you will make any idiotic accusation not to engage with the rather serious threat to your own way of life. So it goes.
Reply to unenlightened Consider the death, betrayal, and theft that brought most of the individuals involved this discussion right now into existence. Can it be ignored if it is a question of lying to oneself for a cause versus being honest? If so, it's a question of if the ends justify the means.
Reply to unenlightened I guess my point, if there is one, is that most of us are a result of imperialist empires such as Roman, Greek, British, German, Ottoman, Byzantine, Mongol, and countless others. These empires took over large quantities of resources, killed and dispersed large quantities of people, and in many cases – Roman in particular – found themselves upon narratives of deceit and betrayal. The people who survived during these times were less the ones that were un-paranoid, non-aggressive, and fully altruistic. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to suddenly be in 'happy bunny hour' all holding hands.
There isn't any question at present in the Western scientific community about whether the greenhouse effect is a real phenomena. You can test this in your own backyard. The majority of esteemed universities around where I live offer full courses about the effects of it and the US, Canada, Europe, China, and India, have already pledged trillions of dollars towards solutions. If you still have doubts, you can easily express your concerns to a professor and not a philosopher. If you win that argument, then you can approach ordinary citizens here with your scientific proof. However, it being scientific knowledge doesn't automatically mean it's true. After all, the sun revolving around the earth was previously common held as science. But conversely, it is a common logical error to think proving something is untrue proves its opposite to be true.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 24, 2023 at 20:30#8647300 likes
Read what you wrote as if you were talking about money. Money is a successful social technology. So is the legal apparatus that allows us to do rule of law. We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years.
Energy is also a social technology that is a real experience for people. People depend on it as much as money and law. It is ridiculous that people are willing to experiment with this highly impractical social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years at the cost of crippling our capacity for producing cheap avaliable energy in the present. "That the wise men should gaze up at the sun and moon and yet fail to see what lies beneath their feet." (Diogenes)
Im sure it will be really nice when Western countries become dependent on the coal power of countries like China and India to fuel their unproven green energy infrastructures.
Deleted userDecember 24, 2023 at 20:48#8647310 likes
:nerd: :nerd: :nerd: "Eeeerm- I just fact checked this on Cheeseburgersville's grandmas Facebook group and actually there is this one little article by the PolyAmoryNews talking about microplastics"
It does not matter. Microplastics are not nearly talked about as much as the climate. That is what I said, and it is a fact.
Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.
Humanity as a whole stands in judgement of itself, and it looks like our judgement is that we might as well die in our own shit. So it goes.
Jeremiah 25:4:You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the Lord persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds. . . Yet you have not listened to me, declares the Lord, that you might provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm.
unenlightenedDecember 25, 2023 at 10:48#8648230 likes
I guess my point, if there is one, is that most of us are a result of imperialist empires such as Roman, Greek, British, German, Ottoman, Byzantine, Mongol, and countless others. These empires took over large quantities of resources, killed and dispersed large quantities of people, and in many cases – Roman in particular – found themselves upon narratives of deceit and betrayal. The people who survived during these times were less the ones that were un-paranoid, non-aggressive, and fully altruistic. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to suddenly be in 'happy bunny hour' all holding hands.
Yes. We are probably more chimp than bonobo, and on top of that we inherit trauma from the traumatised of the previous generation. And as I have already said and others have also attested, it is a difficult process just to come to terms with the personal and cultural loss we are facing. And of course I sound like some modern Jeremiah because on a smaller scale, societies have had to face such calamities many times, and folk have each time divided between the doom merchants and the sceptics.
I am not expecting much happiness.
I am expecting over the next couple of centuries a sea level rise of 10 - 50 metres submerging most of the major cities and a huge percentage of the world's arable land. Add in the mass extinction caused by a climate change too rapid for environments to adapt, and the usual human instinct to blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems, and happy bunnies are going to be thin on what's left of the ground.
Denial is a normal psychological response - 'The Titanic is unsinkable, tell the band to keep playing.' One might hope that philosophers were in a position more to face reality, and start to think about the most meaningful way to respond to the situation. But here it seems that name calling and ridicule is about all they can manage. *shrug*.
But happy Christmas everyone.
FrankGSterleJrDecember 25, 2023 at 23:39#8650180 likes
Due to the Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset, the prevailing collective attitude, however implicit or subconscious, basically follows: ‘Why should I care — my family is immediately alright?’ or ‘What’s in it for me, the taxpayer?’
While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when such progress is so desperately needed — notably, trying to moderate manmade global warming thus extreme weather events.
Although societal awareness of and concern over man-caused global warming is gradually increasing, collective human existence is still basically analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line.
Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.
And if the universal availability of green-energy alternatives will come at the profit-margin expense of traditional 'energy' production companies, one can expect formidable obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If it conflicts with big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully.
As a species, we can be so heavily preoccupied with our own individual little worlds, however overwhelming to us, that we will miss the biggest of crucial pictures. And it seems this distinct form of societal penny-wisdom but pound-foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 26, 2023 at 01:47#8650430 likes
I am expecting over the next couple of centuries a sea level rise of 10 - 50 metres submerging most of the major cities and a huge percentage of the world's arable land. Add in the mass extinction caused by a climate change too rapid for environments to adapt, and the usual human instinct to blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems, and happy bunnies are going to be thin on what's left of the ground.
Niels Bohr:Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
You are ruining your life worrying about something that might never happen. Even if it happens it will be long after you are dead.
Let’s think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn’t know what an atom was. They didn’t know its structure. They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn’t know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it’s even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
unenlightenedDecember 26, 2023 at 10:54#8650880 likes
You are ruining your life worrying about something that might never happen. Even if it happens it will be long after you are dead.
No I'm not. I am not worried. I will be dead, indeed before very long, but I do not make my life a misery by imagining that my life has any great importance. That would be rather foolish considering how very fragile and impermanent an individual human is.
Prediction is indeed difficult, but if scientists were to predict with increasing certainty over some time that a large asteroid was going to hit your state and nothing could be done now because it was too late to divert it, you might be inclined to take a holiday somewhere far away, rather than arguing with complex calculations.
I am giving you my best guess based on the consensus of model predictions augmented by proposed explanations of why these models have proved so far to be underestimating the effects of climate disruption.
Our models just carry the present into the future. They’re bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment’s thought knows it.
Of course. Yet every purposeful act is future directed and functions in exactly that way. In crossing the road, one waits for a gap in the traffic and hopes there is not an invisible car there. One eats a burger and relies on the fact that so far one's burgers have not been too poisonous. Everybody who gives it a moment's thought knows that predictions are the best one can do in preparing for the future, and that though the weather forecast is sometimes badly, wrong, and always wrong to some degree, it is still worth attending to, and preparing for.
Think for a second about what you're asking a skeptic to do. A person is a skeptic for a reason. You don't know what that reason is tied up with. It could be guilt about how they treated their parents, or gratitude to someone who helped them when they really needed it. Point is: you don't know how much you're asking. You want them to take it all and put it to the side for a second in order to listen to something new.
If you can't do that yourself, why are you asking someone else to do it?
Watching people bend over backwards denying what’s happening before their eyes (accurately predicted by scientists— in fact underestimated) is pretty funny.
“It’s a hundred years from now! Models are always wrong!”
Except this was known over a hundred years ago. Eh, denial runs deep.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 26, 2023 at 20:12#8652400 likes
Prediction is indeed difficult, but if scientists were to predict with increasing certainty over some time that a large asteroid was going to hit your state and nothing could be done now because it was too late to divert it, you might be inclined to take a holiday somewhere far away, rather than arguing with complex calculations.
Some things are easier to predict than others. The path of an asteroid hurtling through space is relatively easy to predict. There are not many factors affecting its motion.
Predicting what will happen to the earth is much more complicated. We don't have complete knowledge of its history and the accurate data that we have is from a relatively short time period. There are many more factors affecting it, and some of those factors involve human choices (individual and group decisions).
Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels). People like Mikie concentrate on the risks of continuing to use fossil fuels, but choose to ignore the risks and problems that might be caused by moving away from fossil fuels. A more balanced view would be better.
Not hard to predict the future in this case. More emissions of greenhouse gases, more warming. Climate deniers desperation to find faults is pathetic, as always.
Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels).
Yeah life is a risky game. I wouldn't play it if I had the choice.
But your suggestion seems to be to ignore the best prediction we have and all the evidence we have, in favour of some unimagined factor that will work in our favour rather than making things even worse. I call that wishful thinking.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 27, 2023 at 00:18#8652880 likes
The increased availability of standardized thermometers and the growth of climate data collection networks in the 19th century further contributed to the widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate.
NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, about 45 years of data.
Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.
Why is there a pattern of regular interglacials about every 100,000 years. The current interglacial fits that pattern. From your graphs the current interglacial appears to have plateaued, and it is at a temperature less than the previous interglacial.
Our knowledge is not complete or precise. Predictions are made from climate models which are based on various assumptions. Different models give different results, so they "average" them. If you average many incorrect results you probably won't get the correct result.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 01:12#8652920 likes
You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. But that tracks with literally everything else you’ve posted.
Anyway: (1) 800 thousand years isn’t short, and the data is accurate indeed. (2) We’re warming at an alarming rate, and we know why (greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation). Nothing to do with “models.”
The “models” you do speak of have been remarkably accurate. What they’ve done is underestimated the warming, however.
Also, this isn’t normal:
If you can’t see why this would be troubling to climate scientists, you’re practically illiterate. Or going out of your way to find reasons for denial. We all know you’re a climate denier— but maybe there’s something to the illiteracy part too— I can’t be certain.
For climate change? Of course. The climate has been changing since there's been a climate.
Yes, for climate change. Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 01:45#8653010 likes
Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC.
And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
I don't know what you mean by "the same pattern." We're in a interglacial period. The glacial periods are the dips.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 01:54#8653030 likes
So then, what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of that pattern in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?
It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 02:09#8653090 likes
It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate change in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up.
From the looks of it, climate change is far from being human caused. From what you have told me, it seems like it has more to do with axial wobbles and solar cycles than human activity.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 02:21#8653110 likes
Reply to frank i rarely do... but i always watch your videos. You are obviously insane
Despite your display of supremacy, the question remains:
According to @Mikie's graph- what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?
what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?
I don't even know what you're asking, but I have a feeling you're going to ask again, in spite of the video. :grimace:
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 02:50#8653210 likes
The IPCC attributes pre-industrial spikes in CO2 and temperature to natural factors such as volcanic activity, changes in solar radiation, and variations in Earth's orbit. These natural influences have historically played a role in climate change. However, the IPCC attributes the recent trend in climate change to human activity. The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 27, 2023 at 02:55#8653220 likes
Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
Follow the money.
It also gives certain people the power to control other people.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 03:07#8653240 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money.
I have to ask you: did you think the earth's climate had pretty much always been the way it is now?
I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one.
I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the prehistorical pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one
I asked because you keep saying the cycle from the 800,000 year graph is happening now. It's not. You're overlooking the massive difference in scale between the glacial/interglacial cycle versus the few centuries of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm just saying, when I first started looking into climate change it was because of a book I read about Egypt. If you read about ancient Egypt, you find out that during the last glacial period, the Sahara was a prairie, not a desert. There were people living there. The history of Egypt starts when the glacial period was finally finishing, but there were still big rivers and lakes where now, there's only desert. And all this is just looking at changes over the last 12,000 years.
The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 27, 2023 at 03:39#8653320 likes
The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway.
And the scale of geological time makes our current predictions of "human caused" climate change look like a political agenda when a regular guy cannot get a straight answer about why human activity has superseded natural causes as reason for climate change, despite any historical precedent. I expect no explanation or effort to convince me. We are all simply meant to accept what the great masters tell us.
Earth is finishing up its warmest year in the past 174 years, and very likely the past 125,000.
Unyielding heat waves broiled Phoenix and Argentina. Wildfires raged across Canada. Flooding in Libya killed thousands. Wintertime ice cover in the dark seas around Antarctica was at unprecedented lows.
This year’s global temperatures did not just beat prior records. They left them in the dust. From June through November, the mercury spent month after month soaring off the charts. December’s temperatures have largely remained above normal: Much of the Northeastern United States is expecting springlike conditions this week.
That is why scientists are already sifting through evidence — from oceans, volcanic eruptions, even pollution from cargo ships — to see whether this year might reveal something new about the climate and what we are doing to it.
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
I always find it interesting when people pretend to be intelligent but cannot find obvious answers to single issue questions. Performative stupidity is boring and doesn't serve any rhetorical point other than another reason to ignore you.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 27, 2023 at 10:29#8653860 likes
The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?
Merkwurdichliebe, please try to keep up.
Climate changes over most of the last 800,000 years were always due to natural causes. Humans had little or no influence.
But about 200 years ago natural causes of climate change became extinct (probably due to overhunting). Humans took on the role of controlling the climate and have made a total mess of it.
unenlightenedDecember 27, 2023 at 12:16#8653950 likes
i want a real answer so i can be readily convinced. I'm willing to ignore the money trail if I can get a solid explanation for why, in the 4.5 billion years of naturally caused climate change, it is only in the past 150 years that human activity has become the overwhelming cause of the current trend. But i get nothing but evasions. I know why. I should follow the money.
Over 4.5 billion years there have been many influences on climate. Obit wobbles are one. vulcanism is another continental drift is another, and life is another, The moon has receded from Earth over time so that tides have lessened, asteroids have had strong brief influence, the sun cycles are also important.
Over geological time, the sun's output has increased, however the long term effect of living organisms has been to lock up CO2 in the form of carbonates - limestones and chalk, which are the remains of shelled critters and the like, and oil and coal, the remains of ancient buried vegetation. This stuff has accumulated over the billions of years, some of it being recycled through subduction and vulcanism, and a lot just sitting there buried under layers of sediment.
So the overall effect of life locking carbon into the earths crust, has been enough to negate the increase in insolation. More or less. As i said all these other stuff has been going on as well and I'm not running a full course on climatology here.
The particular human effect has been twofold; firstly by various methods of exploitation pollution, farming fishing etc, to disrupt the ongoing processes of CO2 absorption of the living environment, and secondly and much more significantly, by extracting carbon in the form of coal and oil, and releasing it back into the atmosphere. This has never happened before. It has happened on a huge scale in a very very short time by geological standards. Current CO2 levels are at a level last seen when there was no ice at the N. pole or Greenland, and sea levels were about 50 m. (160 ft) higher than current levels, and global temperatures about 6°C. higher.
We are spending the carbon savings of the planet over billions of years at the rate of about half of the planet's total in a century and a half. And that is why it is humans on this occasion that are having a huge effect on the climate.
unenlightenedDecember 27, 2023 at 13:14#8654040 likes
Here is the latest research on the CO2 roughly since the dinosaurs, still recent history in geological terms, but going back a lot further that the direct measurements of atmosphere bubbles in Ice cores, that stop at about 800,000 yrs.
The handy graph there shows estimates of atmospheric CO2 for the last 66,000,000 yrs. The current level is about 417 ppm, a 50 % increase from preindustrial levels and last seen some 16 million years ago. This is a change way beyond the cycles shown on the ice core graphs shown many times on this thread. 16M, years ago, there was no ice on Greenland, and sea levels and average temperatures were much higher, as I mentioned above.
But we are headed for higher temperatures than that, because the suddenness of the change is causing a mass extinction and disruption to the environment, and we haven't even begun to reduce the rate of CO2 we are adding.
The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?
This is simply not true. The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out.
The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out.
Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.
As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been?
Worth reading for the answer (Spoiler alert: they’ve been remarkably accurate in their predictions):
Reply to Merkwurdichliebe
A big volcano in the S Pacific blew up this year. Volcanoes usually cool the climate (like during the 1990s), but this one is making it hotter because it's under water and it's blowing water vapor into the atmosphere.
Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"?
“They.” Lol.
I’ve got an author right up your alley that can explain it to you:
Let me give you want you want so you can go back to sleep: it’s because “they” want to trip you up! Global warming wasn’t working for them, so they had to change their “brand” — to garner more influence and bring in more money!
I just take note of typical grifty tactics, like narrative shifting, and as the list grows my trust shrinks.
"Global warming" redirects here. For other uses, see Climate change (disambiguation) and Global warming (disambiguation). This article is about contemporary climate change. For historical climate trends, see Climate variability and change.
Schmidt says climate models have come a long way from the simple energy balance and general circulation models of the 1960s and early ‘70s to today’s increasingly high-resolution and comprehensive general circulation models
Back then it was mostly statistical studies. Then after that period atmospheric physicists joined in and made it a real science.
Back then it was mostly statistical studies. Then after that period atmospheric physicists joined in and made it a real science.
I read that in the 1970s, climatology was described as a science of wild guesses. A huge amount of progress has been made, but there are still problems, like the cloud problem:
"In addition, climate models have difficulty incorporating certain information about clouds. Most climate models map features over areas of 100 kilometers by 100 kilometers, though some cloud models may have grids of five kilometers by five kilometers; but even within five kilometers there is a lot of variation in cloud cover. Allegra LeGrande, adjunct associate research scientist at Columbia Climate School’s Center for Climate Systems Research, said, “Sometimes there are processes that are just too small, too complicated, too hard to measure. And you just can’t explicitly include them in the climate models. These tend to be processes like the ephemeral, little wispiness of the clouds. How are you going to translate these tiny ephemeral cloud bits into a climate model of the whole world?”"
So, for you it's all a matter of trust or lack of it, not a matter of exercising your critical intelligence?
Ultimately I'm just taking scientists at their word, so yes trust is important. And over the last decade or so my trust in academia has eroded a great deal, with Covid being the nail on that coffin.
Agree-to-DisagreeDecember 28, 2023 at 03:11#8657420 likes
So, for you it's all a matter of trust or lack of it, not a matter of exercising your critical intelligence?
— Janus
Ultimately I'm just taking scientists at their word, so yes trust is important. And over the last decade or so my trust in academia has eroded a great deal, with Covid being the nail on that coffin.
Deciding whether to trust climate scientists or not does use critical intelligence.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 28, 2023 at 04:19#8657550 likes
Reply to Tzeentch I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both media and government. It's not like they do not have clear record of nefarious and outright deceptive behavior. Why do people so easily keep trusting them with so much shit? Where is a speck of suspended judgment to be found? It is insane.
Listen to all these critical thinkers who, despite getting their silly armchair musings shot down over and over again regarding a subject one has to actually know something about before talking, still try to save face by retreating into vague generalities about how unthinking the masses are.
Guess we’ve run through most of the denial list. There must be SOMETHING left to pick from…wonder who will be bold enough to step forward. To help, I give the following:
There’s nothing happening
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence:
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
We don’t know why it’s happening
There’s no consensus:
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
The models don’t work:
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible:
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure:
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before:
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change:
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2:
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good:
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change can’t be stopped
It’s too late:
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It’s someone else’s problem:
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
It’s economically infeasible:
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
—
I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both media and government. It's not like they do not have clear record of nefarious and outright deceptive behavior. Why do people so easily keep trusting them with so much shit? Where is a speck of suspended judgment to be found? It is insane.
A huge amount of progress has been made, but there are still problems, like the cloud problem
In the late 1950s we had virtually no computer access when I was a post-grad meteorology student at the U of Chicago. (In 1962 at the U of Alabama there was a giant computer filling the wall, floor, and ceiling that was an ordeal to use.)
We learned to classify cloud formations. In atmospheric physics we studied droplets.
Reply to jgill
How many degrees do you have, if I may ask?
The cloud problem is about modeling them for long term predictions. Clouds have a huge impact on the climate, but they aren't sure if future clouds will be more flat or more columnar.
I'm wondering if quantum computers would make it possible to model it?
As a captain in the reserves in the early 1960s, having done my obligation supporting ADC and SAC at a base near the Canadian border, I was asked to go active reserves (i.e., Vietnam) or resign my commission to make room for some other junior officer. I resigned my commission (being a math grad student at the time and married). But the USAF treated me very well while I was active.
If this is true, this is also true for you, so you have effectively said exactly nothing.
I have said something. I have made a statement that applies to most people. And yes, it also applies to people who are skeptical about climate-change/global-warming.
So you don't believe you have any ability as an educated layperson to critically assess the plausibility of scientific claims?
I have some ability of course. I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. So I'm having to take someone else's word for it that there is in fact something going on.
MerkwurdichliebeDecember 28, 2023 at 15:36#8658740 likes
I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about.
True. Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels. I figured they would have closed many flooded beaches by this point.
Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels. I figured they would have closed many flooded beaches by this point.
It is. I have a cousin who bought a condo in the 90s when the beach was about a 100 feet away. Now high tide comes right up to their back door, and that's even with sand dredging. Without the dredging, I think the condo would be gone. Rich people get most of the benefit from dredging. Because of the way the coast works, when they dredge for rich people, poor towns lose more coast. It's something about how the currents work.
What makes it complicated is that this has actually been happening for about 150 years. There are civil war forts where most of the fort is now under water. You can't identify single incidents like this, or look at a single graph, or look at this year's weather and decide what the climate is doing. The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables.
People are not skeptical when they are told things that they want to believe are true.
Yes, especially those who (understandably) want to believe climate change isn’t happening. There’s plenty of motivation there. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to believe that nuclear weapons aren’t that destructive, etc.
Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels.
:rofl:
Sea levels along coastlines from North Carolina to Texas have risen in excess of 10 millimeters a year (about a half inch) compared to an average of about 2 millimeters a year over the last century, said Sönke Dangendorf, an assistant professor at Tulane University. "The science is very clear."
I'm sure the insurance companies must be worried sick about those supposed two milimeters of sea level rise per year. With such numbers we may as well assume the foetal position and wait for the water to take us.
Yes, the Dutch have had to deal with water for centuries. I live by the coast myself, so when the deluge comes I'll be the first to know about it. :lol:
Yes, the Dutch have had to deal with water for centuries. I live by the coast myself, so when the deluge comes I'll be the first to know about it. :lol:
Comments (3959)
Good. Let's keep it that way. :up:
What you haven't done is stand up for me when Benkei told me to "shut the fuck up" and when Mikie directed abusive language at Agree-to-Disagree. But this isn't the place for a discussion of your short comings. Open a feedback thread if you have anything else to say.
Good to see this is all you have left to say after a series of absurd claims.
So what’s your next climate denial trope? That the sun is hot? Maybe it’s volcanoes? Water vapor?
Anything else? Or is that the best you have— that a bunch of places on earth haven’t gotten “warm”?
The richest Americans account for 40 percent of U.S. climate emissions
But yeah, let’s not blame the fossil industry (“only giving people what they want”) or the wealthiest Americans/Wall Street, let’s focus our attention on individuals and their carbon footprints.
Stupidity knows no bounds on this issue.
Climate change is already killing people faster than covid ever did. We should be in carbon lockdown.
Oh, the irony.
Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.
Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
If we reduce the number of cows, all sorts of things would be better, but I agree that fossil fuels are what we need to focus on.
The following 3 articles show that there is a very positive side to cows.
Here are some highlights:
- Methane emitted by ruminants like cattle, sheep and goats is recycled into carbon in plants and soil, in a process known as the biogenic carbon cycle. It’s an important natural cycle that’s been happening since the beginning of life.
- Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?
- beef cattle turn low-quality feed into lots of high-quality protein for human nutrition.
- Grazing of pastures by livestock helps remove GHG from the air by stimulating more plant growth, which accelerates the absorption of CO2 from the air, turning it into carbon in plants and soil.
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
It goes up into the atmosphere first. Methane is lighter than air. But yes, increased CO2 is good for plants.
"Looking at remote sensing data from NASA's satellites, we've discovered that over the last two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 percent, which is roughly five and a half million square kilometers—an increase equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rain forest.". NASA
Quoting Agree to Disagree
They do, but American beef promotes obesity, heart disease, and strokes. Non-American beef is much better for you.
Cows (primarily, of all livestock) produce 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane.
It’s a big problem, and one many scientists (and farmers) are addressing. (Aka, People who know something about the subject.)
If only governments would do that, but I have little confidence that they will. It's not just governments and industry but the voters; if we all consistently voted against any political party that did not call for decreased consumption, massively increased taxes on the wealthy, and, fro example restrictions on the size of newly produced ICE vehicles and heavier taxes on existing vehicles based on their CO2 production, then things would change. But we don't.
It seems to me that most people don't really care beyond paying lip service to the slogans that say "something should be done about global warming" and will vote against any political party that threatens to introduce policies that will impact negatively on the lifestyles they have become accustomed to.
When are people going to realize that industry and governments will not do anything significant unless forced to do so by the people?
Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
Cows eat the plants.
The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.
The problem of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the use of fossil fuels, not cows.
How did the livestock issue end up on your radar? Are you a farmer?
Is this serious? I’ll assume it is.
Yes, there is. There’s an increase in greenhouse gases.
“Rainforests sequester carbon. Logging releases that carbon back into the atmosphere. It’s a cycle. Thus, there is no overall gain or loss in the destruction of the rainforests.”
Your ignorance (and logic) is embarrassing. Try reading about this subject.
I think they’ll begin to realize (maybe) as they see more and more destruction. But the propaganda is strong.
That's actually true. Young trees take up a significantly higher amount of CO2 than old trees, so harvesting wood isn't a problem if it's done sustainably, and as my recent post pointed out, we've gained a whole Amazon rainforest since the 1980s due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
It's truly your ignorance that is embarrassing. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. It just really is.
Not a farmer. I was a computer programmer / software tester for about 40 years.
I had been reading about how cows are very bad for global warming because they emit greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2 and methane).
I wondered how many cows there are in the world. There are just under 1 billion (about 1 cow for every 8 humans).
I thought that 1 billion cows must be causing a huge problem. But then I researched further and found that CO2 and methane from cows are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows (in the long-run).
Most people are spending a lot of time and resources trying to reduce emissions of GHG's from cows. It is a total waste of time and resources. As I said earlier:
- Reducing biogenic carbon won't reduce atmospheric CO2 in the long-run, because it is a cycle.
- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon is a waste of time and will hurt many country's economies. If a country's economy is hurt then the country will have less resources to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
- Concentrating on reducing biogenic carbon wastes the resources that could be used to reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.
It is fossil fuels that are the problem. NOT cows.
Please explain how cows increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
Point out the fault in this logic:
- Atoms of carbon in the atmosphere are taken up by plants.
- Cows eat the plants.
- The cows release the atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
It is a cycle. There is no overall gain or loss of carbon atoms in the atmosphere due to cows.
Remember that carbon atoms are not being created or destroyed. So they are easy to account for.
I don't think most people are worried about cows. It would turn our world upside down to stop using coal and natural gas. Once we figure that out we can worry about any other contributions we're making by way of agriculture.
One thing you're not mentioning though is that cows don't usually just eat grass. They feed them corn, which requires fertilizers that put CO2 to the atmosphere.
Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
You really can’t see it, huh?
Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):
- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.
- We burn those plants.
- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.
That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
Fossils don't burn, Sparky. They're made out of rock.
Here.
:lol:
They don't burn, Sparky, because they ain't got no carbon left in them. Fossilised carbon deposits is coal and oil and tar, and they burns pretty good.
There are so many cows emitting atoms of carbon that there are not enough plants on the planet to consume those additional atoms of carbon.
Yep. It takes a bunch of pressure to turn old fossils into coal or oil.
Tar comes from pine trees.
Also wrong. Natural tar is crude oil coming to the surface of which the lighter part evaporates leaving tar or asphalt.
I think it's more that under pressure, fossilized organic material produces oil and coal. An actual fossil won't burn because it's made out of rock.
Quoting Benkei
Once upon a time, all tar came from pine trees. Tar was used to coat the bottoms of sea vessels and most of it came from one of the English colonies.
You only need to know that if you're into college basketball and you want to know why one of teams is called the Tarheels.
But yes, there's another kind of tar that comes from coal.
The problem with cows is less CO2 and more methane CH4. Cows digest grass/feed through enteric fermentation which produces methane as a by-product--those 4 stomachs... Methane is a much more potent green house gas than CO2 because it absorbs more solar heat. Cows are not the only source of methane: leakage from natural gas operations, rotting vegetation, rotting thawed permafrost soils. Methane also occurs as a hydrate -- water and methane combined in fragile solid deposits in the ocean.
Cows could disappear and methane would still be a significant contributor to global heating,
In various parts of the world, petroleum has seeped out into pools, which then evaporated, forming thick tars. Think of the LeBrea tar pits in L.A. Ancient people found various uses for these substances. Another source of very sticky resin comes from birch bark. Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both extracted a glue from birch bark. Amber is fossilized pine resin.
Pitch, resin, asphalt, and tar name the same (and different) substances. Yes, confusing. It gets worse: plastics derived from petroleum are also called resins.
The sap of pine trees is called resin.
Pitch, asphalt, and tar are forms of petroleum.
A violinist uses a small block of "rosin" or "resin" to increase the stickiness of the horsehairs on the bow. Use the song, "Rosin the beau" as an mnemonic device to connect resin with horsehair. The "bow" in the song is inconveniently spelled "beau" which spoils the whole thing, but never mind.
Pitch, asphalt, and tar have all been used as sealants for boats, wine barrels, and other leaky things.
If you should get a case of gonorrhea, smallpox, or syphilis, I strongly recommend that you not resort to turpentine as a cure.
Correct. And coal is a rock.
Applied topically? Or do you drink it?
The word "fossil" is leading us astray here. Fossils are plants or animals whose tissues have been replaced by minerals. The original animal is altogether absent (except for insects trapped in fossilized amber).
Coal formed because during the carboniferous period, there were no fungi to break down lignin. So, as the masses of vegetation died, accumulated, sank, were buried deeply, heat and pressure cooked the vegetative mess into coal. Minerals did not replace the vegetative matter: If they did, one would have petrified wood, which is interesting, but can't burn.
The Carboniferous Period came to an end with the rise of fungi which were capable of turning the dead plant matter into soil -- no more coal formation.
"Petroleum, also called crude oil, is formed from the remains of ancient marine organisms, such as plants, algae, and bacteria". All that stuff wasn't fossilized. If it was, it would resemble limestone more than grease.
Kerogen is incompletely formed petroleum and makes up [i]shale oil[/I].
The Sinclair Oil Company not withstanding, dead dinosaurs are not the source of crude oil.
Cool.
"We're sorry; the Turpentine Poison Hot Line is closed during the month of August. Please call back at a time when we might be open."
:lol:
Yeah dude, let's pretend you weren't trying to correct unen suggesting tar isn't a product of fossilised plants. :roll:
Quoting frank
No, this is again wrong. Pressure and heat cause the fossilisation of plant matter. It's not that plants fossilise and then under pressure turn into coal.
Why coal is considered as rock?
Being composed of carbon, coal forms a carbonaceous deposit. Having been transported and accumulated in a single deposit it is sedimentary. Having undergone metamorphosis and petrification it is a rock. Consequently it is reasonable to classify coal as a carbonaceous sedimentary rock.
Oct 12, 2015
Why is coal not a rock?
Coal differs from every other kind of rock in that it is made of organic carbon: the actual remains, not just mineralized fossils, of dead plants. Today, the vast majority of dead plant matter is consumed by fire and decay, returning its carbon to the atmosphere as the gas carbon dioxide.
Jan 23, 2020
I consider a fossil to be "a plant or animal whose tissue has been completely replaced by mineral substances; no part of the animal remains in the fossil--only the form". Petrified wood, or petrified dinosaur bones are mineral replacements of the original tissue. The original tree or theropod is altogether absent--gone, missing, kaput.
Coal and oil can be called fossils, but in fact the original tissues of the organisms are present, albeit transformed. If they were actual "fossils" they could not be used as fuel.
So, "fossil fuels" are a handy figure of speech, but they do not actually describe coal and oil.,
I don't think so. Let's all follow BC's lead and grow a sense of humor. :razz:
Yes, I guess that's true. I just don't normally think of coal as a rock. Have you ever been through West Virginia and seen the huge bands of coal in the cliffs beside the highway? Awesome.
Coal is a sedimentary rock. This isn’t controversial.
Quoting BC
Coal and oil are fossil fuels. Also not controversial.
Not sure why you’re muddying the waters on something pretty well understood. No one claimed oil is made from “dead dinosaurs.”
"Aquatic phytoplankton and zooplankton that died and sedimented in large quantities under anoxic conditions millions of years ago began forming petroleum and natural gas as a result of anaerobic decomposition. Over geological time this organic matter, mixed with mud, became buried under further heavy layers of inorganic sediment. The resulting high temperature and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis. Despite these heat-driven transformations, the energy released in combustion is still photosynthetic in origin.[4]"
Wikipedia on fossil fuels.
No one HERE claimed oil is made from dead dinosaurs. Go ask 100 people in Walmart; some of them will say that oil came from dead dinosaurs.
As long as we are talking about fuel, "fossil fuel" is not at all confusing. If people start talking about fossilized animals and plants while they are also talking about fuel, the water turns muddy. If you were to be covered up with a lot of muddy water, the suspended solids would settle on your esteemed carcass and over eons would turn you into a very small glob of petroleum, depending how fat your are. Unfortunately, by the time your are petrol the species will have long since become extinct and the successor species will probably use photosynthesis.
There aren't any fossils in fossil fuels.
Quoting frank
So you were right. The rest of us were wrong.
Fair enough. But people also can’t locate the US on a map, so…
Agreed. The stupidity, denial, and ignorance displayed on this thread alone is itself indicative of a wider problem.
Propaganda, misinformation, and human unwillingness to face reality may very well destroy the species — from climate change, yes, but also from things like nuclear proliferation.
But I try to stay optimistic. Younger people give me some hope.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Livestock, including cows, are a significant contributor and significant problem. They add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Your embarrassing ignorance notwithstanding.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
You really can’t see it, huh?
Well see if you can point out the fault in this logic (I’ll make it easier):
- “Atoms of carbon” are taken up by plants. Those plants get fossilized.
- We burn those plants.
- We release those atoms of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Thus, it’s a cycle and burning fossil fuels doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere.
That still too hard? Alright: more cows, more land is needed to raise cows. Millions of hectares.
———
Still not one response to this.
:up: Optimism is the only attitude worth taking; pessimism brings about its own prophecies...and complacency is capitulation by default. Denial is the worst of all...
Your picture of the carbon cycle is OK as far as it goes, but 3 things are missing:
a) A small minority of cows are grazed on grass alone. Most cows are fed hay or grass, but are "finished"(weight and fat are added) on grains. Grain requires quite a bit of added energy input in the form of fertilizer and fuel. Carbon dioxide is the by-product of raising corn, wheat, and soybeans for feed.
b) Grass-fed cows digest their food by fermentation; a by-product of this fermentation is methane, which the cows belch in large quantities, Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
c) The land on which feed for cattle is produced could produce those crops for humans--corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, etc. The ratio of grains to meat (pound for pound) is 6:1 -- it takes 6 pounds of feed to produce one pound of meat. Chicken is much more efficient, 1.5:1--1 1/2 lbs of feed for 1 pound of chicken. Pork is in-between beef and chicken -- 3:1.
I am not a vegetarian, btw. I like meat.
https://www.goodmeat.com.au/environmental-sustainability/biogenic-carbon-cycle
Cows (and other ruminant animals like sheep) are often linked to climate change because they emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG).
But the fact is, this methane is part of a natural – or biogenic – carbon cycle, in which the methane breaks down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water after about 12 years. Grass then absorbs the CO2 through photosynthesis, cows eat the grass and the cycle continues.
The next 2 paragraphs are counter-intuitive, so take time to think about them
With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced actually balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere.
The next paragraph is my summary of the situation:
With stable livestock numbers the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows remains at the same level. This is because the amount of methane added to the atmosphere each year equals the amount of methane removed from the atmosphere each year (by breaking down into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water). So if livestock numbers stay the same then the methane produced by livestock does not cause additional global warming (the methane from cows is not increasing).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/831959
But yeah, keep quoting the “good meats” company website. Solid (and apparently only) source.
Try broadening your horizons. It won’t help your denial, but it’ll at least inform you a little more regarding your obsession with cows.
Please read this webpage to see information about your points (a) and (c)
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
Look especially at the sections about
- grain-finished versus grass-fed
- Inedible feed to edible protein
- Not competing for land
I gave you 3 sources in total. The other 2 are NOT meat companies
This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
Have you tried doing the maths?
Which points can you prove are wrong?
You’ve repeatedly quoted a meat company.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
You mean your point that cows don’t add any emissions because of the “biogenic cycle”? I’ve addressed this now 3 times. I even reposted it. You’ve ignored it. Not a surprise, given that it shows how ludicrous your position is, but still stands.
The carbon in fossil fuels accumulated over a long time and has been locked away from the atmosphere for a long time. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere and this carbon accumulates because it stays in the atmosphere for a long time. Fossil fuel carbon is not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.
I gave you 2 other sources which are NOT meat companies. What don't you like about these 2 sources?
This one is The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This one is CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research.
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
And forests hold carbon too— some for a long time. Clearing them to make room for livestock adds carbon to the atmosphere. This isn’t hard stuff.
That they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of emissions from livestock, which is significant.
From “goodmeats.”
Clue: the keyword here is “if.” (That’s not happening.)
Emissions are increasing from livestock? “Biogenic carbon cycle.” Bam. Problem solved. Scientists worried for nothing.
The first source from The University of California, Davis
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle
This webpage address actually has "biogenic-carbon-cycle-and-cattle" in the address.
You obviously haven't read it because it is about emissions from livestock
The second source from CSIRO: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2021/december/beef-protein
This webpage has a section on methane
I said it doesn’t address the problem of livestock emissions. It doesn’t address the problem at all, in fact.
It’s also a highly suspect source. Just go to the about section. You’re not getting a full story there.
IF you look then you will see that not all of the sources are meat companies.
IF you read the sources then you might learn something.
IF you can do the maths then you would see that the claim is true.
Clue: the keyword here is “IF”
It talks about livestock emissions and whether these emissions are actually a problem.
The "problem" is that you won't look at anything that you don't agree with.
So too ignorant to understand. Got it.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
It does not address the very real problem of emissions from livestock, which is on the order of roughly 15%.
None of your sources once addresses land change, and make the ludicrous assumption that “if” we keep the numbers the same, eventually things would stabilize. Yeah, no shit. Since that isn’t close to reality, why you choose to harp on it is pretty telling.
How amazing it must be pretending that there’s no problem, and further pretending you know why — because you googled “biogenic carbon cycle.” Truly embarrassing. But keep trying…all of these climate denial tropes are a good demonstration of how stupid that position is.
You don't seem to realize that if the number of cows has already been approximately constant for the last 12 years then the situation is already stabilized. The current number of cows won't cause any additional global warming. The total methane level from cows is already constant in the atmosphere.
If you don't think we can do anything about climate change, it doesn't really matter if cattle farming is net-zero, does it?
We’re not only talking about cows— despite your obsession with them.
Anyway, here’s some references if you want to learn:
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20livestock%20production%20appears,land%2C%20or%20land%2Duse%20change
https://www.wri.org/insights/6-pressing-questions-about-beef-and-climate-change-answered
It appears that you have misinterpreted this source. The full impact of this article is that reducing methane is the best way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.
If there is still any doubt in your mind, here is another article from the same source you cited:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction
Quoting The Guardian · Jun 27, 2023
Quoting GPS World · Jun 28, 2023
Quoting Euronews · Jun 28, 2023
Quoting GPS World · Aug 4, 2023
Lots of :fire: this year. Will this become a new norm of sorts?
Copernicus EFFIS (interactive)
NASA FIRMS (interactive)
There isn't a shred of logic in these statements. Even if it were true that output was stabile, that doesn't imply that the situation to which the output is a contributing factor is stabile. And the fact that the current number of cows won't cause "any additional" global warming just means that the ongoing amount of their ecological impact isn't decreasing. Which is the point.
He's just saying that cattle farming is net-zero wrt greenhouse gas emissions. That's what we want all human operations to be. It's ok to produce greenhouse gases as long as your emissions are being scrubbed somehow.
Whether it's really the case that cattle farming is net-zero, I have no idea.
What kind of load?
No, but that would be highly interesting.
I was at Cumberland Falls in Kentucky a few years ago and picked up some pieces of coal that had washed down from up stream. The pieces were rounded and smoothed; quite nice. I've never thought of coal as a rock, either. When I was a child, we heated the house with a coal space heater. Usually the coal was briquettes, but sometimes it was chunk coal, some of the chunks being the size of a small watermelon or cantaloupe.
I suppose, upon your first naive encounter with unprocessed coal one could think of it as a rock. It is rock-like in hardness and weight, but it has very unrocklike features. For instance, if you apply a small torch flame to the surface of unprocessed coal, little jets of gas will ignite; if you apply more heat, the surface will chip off. Apply enough heat and it burns. Rocks don't do that.
The residue of burnt coal is more clearly a mineral. Clinkers formed in the bottom of the stove. They were fairly hard and brittle -- but not a solid mass -- lots of irregular shapes and holes. Coal ash is reddish grey-brown and relatively light in weight. The ash will become toxic when water leaches out the various chemicals native to coal and created by combustion.
How did you start the heater? Did you use lighter fluid?
Most of the beef sold is NOT grass-fed -- it's grass for-a-while then grain-finished. I discussed the increased CO2 load from grain production above.
True enough, methane is much shorter-lived than CO2--12 years, +/- as you said. The problem is that we are loading the atmosphere with more and more methane -- much of it from natural gas and oil production. The increased load of methane is the problem -- not that it takes a long time to break down, like CO2. Belching cattle are one source. There are a lot of cattle on the planet, about a billion.
There are also about a billion automobiles in the world, which produce various noxious chemicals and which we can't eat.
Plants do take up CO2, of course. Unfortunately, we are reducing the planets best carbon sinks -- rain forests. Grass lands can absorb CO2 also, as can crop land. Both grazing and crop production can be managed to maximize CO2 uptake. This requires minimum tillage, and rotating the grazers so that they don't "clear cut" the pasturage. This method of meat production takes more labor and attention than the other method.
We should be planting more trees, and restoring crop and grazing land so that more CO2 could be captured and sequestered in soil.
The information on Good Meats isn't wrong, but quantity matters when it comes to CO2 and methane,
But it's the nature of a cycle that as methane is emitted today, the components of yesterday's emissions are simultaneously being taken up by plants. This is the argument, anyway.
I used to do aquariums, so I'm somewhat tuned into cycling and bio load on a closed system. I presently have an immortal fish with whom I have a troubled relationship. I want her to die so I can close down my last aquarium, but she's now about 4 times the age her species is supposed to live. I think of letting the bio load rise until the pH is incompatible with life, but I can't do it!
Sorry for the extraneous details.
Right. And if all methane-producing elements in the environment were somehow eliminated, the methane levels would drop. Whether, in the grand scheme of things, a cow is "methane-neutral" is a pretty hard to say. But biologically (vs systemically) speaking, cows are "methane generators". If all cattle were gone, methane levels would decrease.
8 billion+ people, a billion cattle, a billion cars, a petroleum-dependent world economy, cement production (cooking limestone to make lime), metal production, airlines, a mindless garbage problem -- it is ALL the problem.
The "cure" may be as unpalatable as the "disease".
Agree to Disagree is not being substantially more recalcitrant than a billion car owners that do not want to give up their private vehicles, or give up good roads to drive on, or a few billion carnivores who do not want to replace meat with beans and greens.
Our ways of living are unsustainable, and we are in trouble and heading for worse. Sure, some individuals don't see the problem, but entire governments can't seem to actually do very much either--never mind the corporate sector. Either very few or no G20 governments have managed to act effectively on carbon dioxide/methane gas reduction. Sure, spotty progress is being made here and there, but critical decades have passed where nothing got done.
No, we used a small wood fire to get the coal going. During the winter, the fire was maintained by the regular addition of more coal (done by hand). At night, the coal would burn down and almost nothing left in the morning, so around 6:00 more coal had to be added.
A lot of people heated with coal. Until the late 60s the only alternative in the upper midwest was oil. Unless they were buying gravel coal (ground up to the size of gravel that could be loaded into the furnace by an auger) they had to add the coal with a shovel or a bucket. You opened the stove's door and threw the coal in.
The other source of heat for the house was a large cast iron wood burning cooking stove that had been converted to oil--kerosene. The stove was supplied from a 5 gallon tank that had to be refilled once a day from a bigger tank in the barn. Quite a few times a day, the stove's tank would make a "glug-glug-glug" sound as air filled the emptying space in the tank. It was especially noticeable in the night's quiet. This stove also was on all winter. (Our house was an old, uninsulated leaky frame building).
This is true. But what is not mentioned is that the more cows there are, the higher the stable amount of methane in the atmosphere is. And the amount that it increases as we increase meat production has to be added to other sources of methane from leaky pipes, oil wells, melting permafrost, etc.
So it's not "the answer" because no one thing is the answer, but eating less red meat in particular is a very good way to buy more time to take other measures if enough people start doing it. In the UK, this is happening to the extent that vegetarian and vegan options have become ubiquitous in supermarkets, restaurants and fast food outlets. And it helps a bit. It also helps to reduce the pressure on the rainforest of the Amazon basin, for example, which is being cut down and burned to make room for more cattle and more soya and maize cattle feed. I'm not an expert on the Australian ecosystem, but the introduction of non-native species has not been without problems.
[quote=WWF]No other rural industry impacts more of Australia than our beef industry. More than 63,000 farming businesses are producing beef from 43% of the country's landmass. We are also the world's second largest beef exporter, which injects an estimated $8.4 billion into the Australian economy.
More than any other livestock industry, the beef industry relies on healthy natural ecosystems. Fodder and clean water are essential. But cattle production is costly to the environment. Clearing native vegetation for pasture has sacrificed wildlife habitat, and poor grazing practices have seen excess sediments enter waterways and damage places like the . Cattle are also significant greenhouse gas producers, which contributes to climate change.[/quote]
https://wwf.org.au/what-we-do/food/beef/#
If cattle farming were truly net-zero, this wouldn't be true. As you say, we don't know if it is. A pretty complex analysis would have to be brought to bear.
That sounds cozy.
Yes, it would be true. This is why:
Quoting unenlightened
This is exactly what I have been describing. Livestock population levels correlate with a certain systemic level of methane.
The fact of the matter is, we should be making whatever reductions even remotely make sense and actively searching for new possibilities to do so. We have been quite content to radically disturb the biosphere haphazardly in aid of profit, we should be courageous enough to do so systematically in aid of human well being.
I'm not seeing this. Let's say we start from today. There's an average of 1.7 ppm of methane in the atmosphere. This average covers seasonal variation. Now we'll add a cattle farm in Mexico, and it's truly net zero, which means that after 12 years, its output is entirely absorbed by its input.
Why would there be a net increase in methane?
Quoting Pantagruel
And I repeated this same sentiment earlier in the thread. The thing is, it really doesn't relate to the argument Agree-to-Disagree made. My point is just this: his assertion is not illogical. I would need more than a vague principle to accept that cattle farming is net-zero. But if he's correct that it is, then he's right that it's not a contribution to global warming.
You are not grasping that this is a system and there is a definable quantity of methane within the entire system that correlates with a specific population level of cattle. Ergo any decrease in the population of the cattle is simultaneously a decrease in the associated methane level. It is irrelevant over what period of time the cattle achieve a net-zero methane balance.
It can be net zero in terms of carbon, but if you double the number of animals, you double the methane released. in 12 years time all the first year's methane will have degraded through lightening and radiation aided oxidation, but meanwhile the overall amount of methane of bovine origin will have doubled and that will be the new 'stable amount' in the atmosphere.
But google is your friend.
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/oil-gas-and-coal/methane-emissions_en#:~:text=Methane%20is%20the%20second%20most,on%20a%2020%2Dyear%20timescale.
The cows put out 1 ppm of methane. The plants take up 1 ppm of methane. That's what net-zero means.
I think you're just basically asserting that it isn't possible for a cattle farm to be net-zero.
:up:
What is the proposal for how atmospheric methane is absorbed by the farm? As I understand it, plants don't make use of atmospheric methane as they make use of atmospheric CO2. (Although some species of bacteria metabolize methane.)
Yes, and it also means that there is always a correlative amount of methane hanging about in the system. It doesn't just flow from the butt of the cow into the tissues of the plant.
Methane oxidizes to CO2 after about 12 years.
Quoting Pantagruel
Yes. The emissions won't be absorbed for about 12 years, but cattle farms don't last forever. After Juan retires and closes down the farm the plants still absorb the methane for about 12 years. In the end, if the farm was truly net zero, it did not contribute to global warming.
The big problem is that economies and countries and people (farmers, etc) who depend on cows (beef, dairy, etc) are being punished for no good reason. Economies and counties and people are being damaged financially. Countries that are damaged financially have less money to fight fossil fuels, and are wasting resources that could be used to fight fossil fuels.
I may have given people the impression that I thought that there is nothing that we can do about global warming. I think that this is probably true short-term. Part of the reason for this is that people don't understand the real situation and are concentrating on the wrong solutions. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as the Titanic slowly sinks.
I think that there is something that we might be able to do about global warming long-term. If we concentrate on the right solutions. Even then, it will be difficult and take a long time. I favor a slow move away from fossil fuels. But not so fast that it creates big problems.
But let's say that the public begins to favor a lower cholesterol diet and they want to move away from monoculture land use with all the pesticides and fertilizers that go with that. The people in the beef and dairy industries could adapt to the changing scene just like all the people who had to adapt to the rise of computers and the end of American steel. They could find jobs doing something else, like making tofu.
I guess where I land on the issue is that I think the use of coal and natural gas needs to be the main issue. Doing something about cows will not solve the problem. Doing something about coal, considering the massive amount of coal we have left to burn, would be a giant step toward solving the problem. Whatever social technology we develop to make that change will help us change whatever else needs adjusting.
I mean, the very notion that people would sit around arguing about cows seems crazy to me. We all agree on what the main problem is. Our common ground is huge compared to the rest. How the hell to we end up at each other's throats over the tiny bit we disagree on?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
At present, this is true. The present global commitment isn't enough to accomplish much even if there was universal buy-in.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
:up:
I think that you and I agree on about 99% of what we are talking about. But that doesn't make for an interesting discussion, so I am going to concentrate on the 1% where we disagree. Also, I don't like tofu. :grin:
Yea. That's probably how it works. Tofu is especially good in Thai food. :grin:
You will be happy to discover that is precisely the policy of most countries. However, if the change doesn't happen fast enough then global heating may scuttle all of our plans.
Quoting frank
Amen, brother. Can we please stop discussing the god damned cows!
Quoting Agree to Disagree
By my definition of long term (a century, say) we don't have a long term. We have a short term which 30 years ago was maybe 40 years into the future. We've pissed away the last 30 years, and now have about 10 years left.
Do we all drop dead in 10 years? No. People are already dropping dead from global heating, In 10 years, we may not have any options left which we can apply to the problem. In other words, the planet will continue to get hotter as we struggle to meet the standards for 1.5ºC of global warming, which goal will have been left in the dust.
Get a divorce and split things 50/50. :grin:
Yes, and your assessment of what the “real” situation is should definitely be taken seriously, given your record so far.
It’s not like you’ve been peddling denialist tropes and ignorant statement after ignorant statement or anything.
Thanks. That gives me a clearer picture of what is under consideration.
They have been saying that we only have 10 years left for the past 40 years.
Have you heard about the boy who cried "wolf".
In the country where I live beef, lamb, and dairy are very important industries. The government and the farmers have been arguing for at least 6 years about whether agriculture should be brought into our country's Emissions Trading Scheme (and how it should be brought in). The government and the farmers keep making deals and then breaking them.
There is an election very soon, and this has become an election issue.
That’s at least 6 canards. Climate denial bingo.
Yes, they (scientists) have been warning about global warming for decades. And what do we see? This summer half of Canada is on fire, smoke plumes made their way all over the US, heat records broken all over, a tropical storm heading to California, deadly heat waves and fires in Europe, India, China — Maui on fire, and the hottest July on record.
But yeah, it’s exactly like “the boy who cried wolf.”
How willfully ignorant does one have to be to deny the evidence all around them? It’s the effect of propaganda…or pure stupidity.
Or both. It doesn't seem to require much intelligence to be a propaganda parrot.
True, but I have more sympathy for those who have been deliberately and systematically brainwashed. Our latest foil is a bit of both, but generally an average climate denier. Nothing special.
Quoting frank
Quoting Agree to Disagree
In a previous post, @Agree to Disagree linked to an article from the University of California that supposedly showed that cattle farming is net-zero. However this article makes the OPPOSITE point (apologies for shouting). The full impact of this article is that reducing methane from cattle farming is a cost effective way to reduce global warming - because reducing methane has a more immediate impact on the environment than reducing CO2. Go to minute 4:00 of the video where the narrator talks about steps that California is taking to reduce methane emissions.
Here is another article from the same source @Agree to Disagree linked to:
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/news/new-report-california-pioneering-pathway-significant-dairy-methane-reduction
Quoting frank
But his own source proves that it does contribute.
Just to be clear, it is important to reduce all sources of greenhouse gas emissions - oil, coal, natural gas, etc. But that does not mean that we should ignore a cattle farming as a significant source when there are solutions. These are not mutually exclusive.
:up:
In this world, very little ever happens quickly. Long lead times are needed to effect major changes in production, transportation, construction, energy generation, medicine, and so forth. Rule of thumb: it takes 40 years to introduce and build out new technology. Electric cars are a good example: Tesla made its first car in 2008. 15 years after the first car, Tesla is now building out a nationwide charging system. Various companies and agencies are working on this area. Meanwhile, non-carbon-fueled electricity generation is still far from dominant. It's price competitive, but it still amounts to only about 20% of the total electricity production in the US.
We haven't run into global shortages of lithium and cobalt for batteries yet; the same goes for neodymium, samarium, terbium. dysprosium, lanthanum and cerium which are used in various parts of electric motors -- then there is copper. Lots of copper. The metals are produced by fairly dirty extraction and refining, It's isn't that they are so rare. So, we don't have enough of all this stuff on hand to suddenly field 30 million electric autos, even if that was. good idea. Again, 40 years.
Various technologies (like hydrogen) would be far less polluting than even natural gas, but we are a long ways from having the infrastructure to produce, distribute, and use enough H to make a difference, Again, think 40 years.
Ten years is a good stretch of time to talk about. 100 years is way too long to think about meaningfully, and 1 year is way too short.
I don't see where it says that. This is the entire article:
"The Biogenic Carbon Cycle and Cattle
February 19, 2020
By Samantha Werth
"Cattle are often thought to contribute to climate change because they belch methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas. While this is true, cattle do belch methane, it is actually part of an important natural cycle, known as the biogenic carbon cycle.
"Photosynthesis and carbon
The biogenic carbon cycle centers on the ability of plants to absorb and sequester carbon. Plants have the unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and deposit that carbon into plant leaves, roots, and stems while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere. This process is known as photosynthesis and it is central to the biogenic carbon cycle.
"When plants perform photosynthesis, carbon is primarily converted to cellulose, a form of carbohydrate that is one of the main building blocks for growing plants. Cellulose happens to be the most abundant organic compound in the world, present in all grasses, shrubs, crops, and trees. Cellulose content is particularly high in grasses and shrubs found on marginal lands, which are places where grains and other human edible crops cannot grow. Two-thirds of all agricultural land is marginal, full of cellulose dense grasses that are indigestible to humans. But guess who can digest cellulose?
"Cattle upcycle cellulose… and carbon!
Cattle are made to digest cellulose. They are able to consume grasses and other plants that are high in cellulose and, through enteric fermentation, digest the carbon that is stored in cellulose. Cattle can use that carbon, upcycling the cellulose, for growth, milk production, and other metabolic processes.
"As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle belch out methane, there-by returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere. After about ten years, that methane is broken down and converted back to CO2. Once converted to CO2, plants can again perform photosynthesis and fix that carbon back into cellulose. From here, cattle can eat the plants and the cycle begins once again. In essence, the methane belched from cattle is not adding new carbon to the atmosphere. Rather it is part of the natural cycling of carbon through the biogenic carbon cycle.
"Fossil Fuels Are Not Part of the Biogenic Carbon Cycle
The biogenic carbon cycle is a relatively fast cycle. That is, carbon cycles between plants and the atmosphere in a short period of time, usually in the range of a few years to a few decades. In the case of cattle, this cycle is about ten years. By comparison, carbon exchange between the atmosphere and geological reserves (such as deep soils, the deeper ocean, and rocks) is on the span of millennia, 1000 or more years. Hence, why the extraction and burning of fossil fuels (i.e. geological reserves) has a much greater impact on our climate than the biogenic carbon cycle.
"It takes 1000 years for CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels to be redeposited back into geological reserves. That is tenfold (10x) the amount of time it takes methane belched by cattle to be redeposited back into plant matter. To put this in perspective, the CO2 released from driving your car to work today will remain in the atmosphere, having a warming effect on our climate, longer than the lifetimes of you, your children, or even your grandchildren. Thus, the burning of fossil fuels has a longstanding impact on our climate, one that is much more significant than the belching of methane from cattle, which is part of the short-term biogenic carbon cycle."
It looks like it's saying that cattle farming is not a significant contributor. What am I missing?
I don't think hydrogen is a feasible technology though. It depends on overcapacity and over investing in energy generators doesn't make economic sense and building a hydrolysis plant that only runs during very windy or very sunny days (in NL) means it will be only a few days a year, doesn't make any sense either.
What am I missing?
Maybe quote the next sentence too and watch the video?
Please don't talk about Mikie like that.
I'm not a hydrogen booster. Namibia is planning a hydrogen production facility driven by wind and solar. If steel and lime can be made with electricity, then use that instead of making a fuel with electricity first. I don't see H being a major form of energy.
I used hydrogen as an example -- if we were going to make a lot of hydrogen for all sorts of purposes, it would probably take 40 years (+/-) to get production, transportation, and consumption facilities built.
Yes, the white hydrogen seems very feasible as part of a larger energy mixture. The green hydrogen they're pursuing in the Netherlands doesn't look too good to me. I was working at the Ministry of Finance when they were discussing it and challenged subsidising it. Over the years, I've learned a lot from my dad who was engineer and manager at Shell his entire career. It fell on deaf ears (because what would a lawyer know about economics and chemistry, right?) but I see much of the worries I had voiced again in the media nowadays but the ship seems to have already sailed.
I would expect that the developments of batteries still have lots of potential that make it inefficient to store potential in hydrogen as well. There's sand batteries in Finland and Toyota claiming a recent breakthrough in solid state batteries halving costs, that are just two recent examples I've heard of that sound promising.
Of course, there might be an industrial need for H2 to make ammonia and fertiliser if we stop making H2 from CH4 but I'm not sure we would want to have a large hydrolysis plant compete with our regular need for energy, basically increasing prices. Because I'm pretty certain once the plant is there and they "discover" it's not viable to only run it when there's overcapacity that the government will allow them to buy electricity in the market even when there's undercapacity, causing prices to explode for regular people.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-concerned-by-record-high-global-methane-emissions/
Apologies if you haven't had your breakfast yet, but not only do the burps consist of methane, but a whole lot more is produced by the anaerobic breakdown of the waste products, typically in slurry ponds.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4986936/
This is an entirely tractable problem, that requires mere money to be thrown at it. Cover the slurry, and collect the gas for domestic use. Pre-industrial farming would use straw bedding that mixed with the effluent and would be mainly aerobically composted in a heap and then spread as fertiliser on the arable fields. And of course the peasants ate little meat, so a win win.
Steps need to be taken toward this happening.
Yes, 2 steps, to be precise. A subsidy on the equipment required to collect the gas, and a tax on allowing its release. Bish bash bosh. Farmers cannot run and hide.
The same can be done on a global scale by building a carbon tax system into world trade agreements. Since we can get detailed emission data from satellites, the rules can be readily enforced and countries trying to cheat can be penalised with export duties. If there were a will, it is not difficult to do. But cheating is profiteering at the expense of the planet, and we are letting the cheats prosper because they fill the ranks of all governments and all political parties able to seriously contend for government.
I looked at the video. At the portion you marked, the guy is suggesting that if we limit methane emissions from cattle (apparently California has already dropped it by 25%), then we can reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere.
He's saying that in cattle production there's an opportunity to go beyond net zero to net negative. I get that. We haven't discussed that up to this point, though. We were just talking about whether or not cattle production is net zero.
If you have nothing left to add, let the adults talk.
I look forward to your next climate denial trope, as myself and several others repeat the “propaganda” from…checking notes… 99% of the climate scientists.
For those playing the bingo:
- climate science is propaganda
- scientists have “cried wolf” for decades
- scientists were warning about a coming “ice age” in the 70s, so…you know, why take them seriously now?
- there’s nothing that can be done about climate change. Name a solution and I’ll shoot it down with cheap skepticism.
- livestock aren’t a problem because…” biogenic carbon cycle.”
- scientists have “hidden” data on temperatures
Etc.
But I’m not a denier.
Every plant (bar a very few and rare parasitic ones) is carbon negative. Every animal and fungus, by contrast, is carbon positive. If a cattle farm is not net zero or negative, it is depleting the soil, or the soil of the farm from which it sources its feed. A cattle farm can be turned carbon negative most easily by killing the cattle and planting trees. Fruit trees, if you also want to feed some naked apes. But we like dairy and beef. Ok, then let's have some dairy and beef, but let's not pretend that it will help to stop climate change. That's ahem, bullshit! Try not to consume bullshit.
Every farm needs to be substantially carbon negative simply to offset the carbon positive human life that it exists to support.
:up:
Quoting frank
Firstly I should have looked a bit more closely at the source of these articles. While they are by University of CA, from what I can gather these studies are funded by our old friends the cattle industry (I could be wrong on this). So we need to be cautious.
Just to sum up, CH4 is a much more potent greenhouse gas than C02 (estimates vary between 20 times to 80 times depending on how it's calculated.) After 12 years, CH4 turns into C02. Even tho the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere is much less than CO2, it has an outsized contribution to total global warming (at least 14%) during those 12 years.
After 12 years there is no difference to the climate whether these CO2 molecules came from tailpipe emissions or from cow burps. However as an accounting issue we can separate that out since the plants that feed the cattle are re-absorbing CO2. So the phrase "net zero" is not referring to the contribution to global warming - rather "net zero" is referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now just to be precise we could quibble about the "net zero-ness" of this cycle since the whole process of raising cattle creates additional CO2 apart from the CH4 - but for purposes of discussion we can ignore that.
What I have not been able to ascertain in my limited free time here is whether the CO2 emitted by 1.5 billion cattle (since they do breath in O2 and emit CO2) is factored into these calculations - but I assume that this is factored into these calculations as well.
So reducing CH4 emissions from cattle raising is a very good thing from 2 perspectives - firstly by sequestering (or reducing CH4 emission) there will be fewer CO2 molecules floating around in 12 years - and secondly by reducing the amount of nasty CH4 floating around during those 12 years we can slow global warming by some measurable amount.
Of course reducing the production of cattle would have an even greater impact.
I assumed the one from UC Davis was produced through a grant from some beef collective. It just has that written all over it.
Quoting EricH
I agree. Through this discussion, people have been approaching the issue as if it can be answered by applying armchair principles. I doubt that. If it takes a super computer to run a simplified model of the climate, why would somebody think they can spitball the effect of cows? C'mon!
I suspect that when I went back to university to do a 2nd degree you were probably still in nappies (or if you are American, still in diapers).
Intelligence, wisdom, knowledge doesn’t correlate with age, nor degrees. You’re a prime example.
Like I said, let the adults talk. Go back to reading meat industry propaganda. Or do you still have something stupid to say?
Yes, but plants and animals (and fungi) are all part of a cycle (the biogenic carbon cycle). So in the long-run the negatives from the animals have the same magnitude as the positives from the plants. It is a zero sum game.
Note that the claim that I just made does not include fossil fuels used to produce plants and animals. It also doesn't include things like nitrogen fertilizers. Fossil fuels and nitrogen fertilizers are not part of the biogenic carbon cycle.
Quoting unenlightened
However cow shit IS a part of the biogenic carbon cycle. And so is bullshit. :grin:
Are you saying that young people (with little life experience) usually have more intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge than older people?
I used to think that when I was young. :grin:
Quoting Agree to Disagree
I guess you did have something stupid left to say. Cool.
It is a zero sum game with respect to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But the methane from 1.5 billion cattle that hangs around for 12 years in the atmosphere is contributing 14% of the of the global warming.
If you had actually read the article and watched the video from U Cal that you yourself posted (which BTW is financed by the cattle industry), it's all about reducing the methane emissions from cattle farming. This in of itself is a good thing
Indeed. A desert is carbon neutral - the environment is balanced. But for a farm, that balance has to extend beyond the farm to the community of humans it feeds. Therefore the farm itself, excluding its dependent customers, has to be carbon negative. Humans in cities are part of the biogenic cycle too, but they course do not feature in the calculations of the livestock industry.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Indeed. You don't actually have to teach anyone here the basic science. It is indeed the burning of stored carbon that is the maincause of the problem, and that includes not only the obvious fossil fuels, but notably the limestone and chalk used to make concrete and to neutralise acidity in the soil of farms.
And as you imply, intensive farming is problematic. In order for a farm to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, it needs to be carbon negative after the consumption of all its edible produce. It needs to be storing carbon in the soil, or else producing non-consumable wood products or the like.
Farming practice needs to move in two directions at once. Frstly towards a true hydroponic factory farm, of multi-layered artificially lit growth powered by electricity. A sterile controlled environment to maximise the production of food; and similar bacterial and fungal production units. Secondly, to a lower intensity farming of the land that prioritises environmental concerns for biodiversity, resilience, and carbon capture over maximising human food production. In either direction, there is going to be less meat.
Quoting EricH
But not as good a thing as getting rid of the cattle.
That sounds too much like a final solution. :scream:
Yes, all humans everywhere (not just cities) are part of the biogenic carbon cycle. Humans also use non-biogenic carbon (e.g. from fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas).
Consider a spherical cow (or a spherical human). Every carbon atom that comes out of the cow must have at some point gone into the cow. The cow does not create carbon atoms or destroy carbon atoms. All that the cow does is change the form of the carbon atoms (e.g. from cellulose to milk, muscle tissue, bones, dung, CO2, methane, etc).
Some of the carbon atoms that come out of cows go into humans (we drink milk, eat meat, etc). So both cows and humans are part of the same biogenic carbon cycle. You can consider the biogenic carbon cycle of just cows, or the biogenic carbon cycle of just humans, or the combined biogenic carbon cycle of cows and humans together. Every biogenic carbon cycle must "balance", no matter which organisms (or combinations of organisms) is considered.
The same is true of a "farm". In the long run the farm captures carbon atoms from the atmosphere (or has them delivered in other forms e.g. grains to feed the cows). It outputs carbon atoms in a variety of ways (crops, fruit, vegetables, milk, meat (processed cows), etc). The farms biogenic carbon cycle must balance.
The farm can also act as a temporary store of carbon atoms as well. But in the end the farms biogenic carbon cycle must "balance".
This is why biogenic carbon is not an overall contributor to global warming.
The whole planet's carbon cycle has to balance because of gravity. :grin:
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
The whole worlds biogenic carbon cycle must balance. It is not because of gravity, it is because of simple accounting. Ask your bank manager. :nerd:
I don't know, accounting is pretty complicated. :razz:
The long run includes all the already captured carbon in the Earth, and human exploitation of it too as part of the biogenic cycle. the question is whether humans are going to be in it for the long run or are going to be a temporary disruption. the whole cycle of life on Earth can stop and still be in balance. So no worries eh?
Fossil fuels were formed over a very long period of time from what used to be biogenic carbon. The process of turning biogenic carbon into fossil fuels removes it from the biogenic carbon cycle.
Because fossil fuels have been locked away from the "living" world for a very long time they are normally considered to be non-biogenic.
This article explains the relationship between biogenic methane and global warming.
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/inline-files/CLEAR-Center-Methane-Cows-Climate-Change-Sep-2-20_6.pdf
You know how there was this American missionary who decided to bring the faith to a small island off the coast of Africa? It was an area where there were no police, there was no government, and no law. People told the missionary not to go because the natives would kill him.
He was like, "No, I have love in my heart, and these people will see into my soul and understand that I'm coming to help them. He was practically glowing with his bright pearlescent halo as he set out alone in a canoe to save some souls.
They killed him.
It's good to try to look at the world through other people's eyes, but if you find that you don't have the experiences necessary to do that, at least recognize that the basic trust necessary for human interaction is not built by beaming your righteous heart out at the world you want to save. Sometimes you have to notice what other people need in order to trust you. If you're too bound up in your ego to look outward, you may end up destroying any chance of trust (like by insisting that in your flesh and bones you believe the ends justify the means, that's a bowling ball into trust.)
So they say that carbon dioxide is bad but methane which degrades, quickly or slowly, to carbon dioxide is not as bad?
Yeah arbitrary limits to your terms to allow your mantra to be true. One tries to engage, but eventually one reaches the outer limits of denialism. 12 years too short, 12 million years too long, but if you look at it just so - no worries. Have a great death!
But…Biogenic carbon cycle?
I think that's the guy I was thinking of.
Bacteria that decompose methane into fertilizer and tofu.
Just kidding, it's not tofu, it's some kind of edible sludge.
So first of all you should be aware that the Clear Center at UC Davis, receives almost all its funding from industry donations and coordinates with a major livestock lobby group on messaging campaigns. So we have to be very cautious about anything they might say.
This contradicts virtually every other source I could locate with a 10 minute search - they all say the same thing - methane emissions (primarily from cattle production) are contribute roughly 14% of total global climate change.
But let's say for the moment that Clear Center is correct and every other source is wrong - and that methane from livestock (provided it is constant) is not contributing to global warming at all.
Even with this counter factual assumption it is still a good thing to reduce methane production - since per your source this is one of the most cost effective ways to slow down global warming. Yes?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Edit: Maybe we are misunderstanding these papers. I email'd Dr. Mitloehner from Clear Center at UC Davis. Let's see what he has to say
[i]Dear Dr. Mitloehner,
I am a lay person who follows climate science - I am hoping you can find the time to answer a question.
I can see from the published reports that CLEAR is doing some good work on reducing CH4 emissions from livestock management.
In this paper it states that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs. However this seems to contradict virtually every other source I can find which says that CH4 production from agriculture (primarily livestock raising for meat or milk) is responsible for roughly 14% of global warming.
I fully understand the biogenic carbon cycle, I get that livestock production is net neutral with respect to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (apart from associated costs of transportation etc, etc).
However, the CH4 from 1.5 billion or so cattle is always in the atmosphere and this is well above the amount of CH4 that was in the atmosphere before we started mass production of livestock. So isn't that additional CH4 contributing to global warming (even if the concentration does not increase)?
Or put differently, would it be correct to state that when a steady amount of CH4 is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs above and beyond the contribution from the CH4. (My bold)
I am aware of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - so thank you for being patient with these amateur questions.[/i]
Can you see the difference between 12 years and 12 million years?
Quoting unenlightened
I am doing my best to have a great life !!!
And before you accuse me of being selfish, I want everybody to have a great life.
Biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 and methane) does not make global warming worse.
Non-biogenic carbon (e.g. CO2 from fossil fuels and methane from non-biogenic sources) does make global warming worse.
For global warming it is mainly the biogenic versus non-biogenic issue which is important.
This is why we should be making major efforts to reduce non-biogenic carbon (this will be effective), and stop making major efforts to reduce biogenic carbon (this will not be effective).
I think that the problem here is the phrase "contributing to global warming at all". It should be "contributing any additional global warming".
Methane causes global warming:
- if you increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get more global warming
- if you decrease the amount of methane in the atmosphere then you get less global warming
- if the amount of methane in the atmosphere stays constant then the amount of global warming from the methane stays constant (it doesn't make global warming any worse or better)
A constant number of cows produces a constant amount of methane each year. Because methane has a finite lifetime (about 12 years) this means that the total amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows is constant. So with a constant number of cows the amount of global warming that is caused by the methane produced by the cows is constant.
Non-biogenic methane is a different issue.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Seems kind of silly to think that matters much in this discussion, when you are constantly demonstrating that you are a pretender to scientific understanding. Does, "Hesperus is Phosphorus", help?
How are you going to farm the cattle without clearing land or using land that is already cleared that could otherwise be planted with trees, ideally fruit or nut-bearing trees, or grow more efficient animals, such as chickens, or crops, and how will you transport the cattle to market without using fossil fuels?
Right - it will continue to contribute 14% of the global warning - which accumulates.
To make the math simple, let's say that the current amount of methane in the atmosphere is causing mean global temp to rise by 0.01 degrees C every 10 years. So in 30 years if the amount of methane stays the same it will have contributed 0.03 degrees C rise.
But maybe I'm totally getting this wrong and Dr. Mitloehner will have an obvious explanation for his assertions. I highly doubt he will answer but you never know.
Apart from that, do you agree that what UC Davis is doing to reduce methane production is a good thing? If nothing else this will slow the rate of global warming, yes?
It absolutely does.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
But there are no solutions, remember?
“Tell me a solution and I’ll shoot it down.”
—
Cows— livestock, agriculture, etc., emit greenhouse gases. That contributes to warming the planet. It’s that simple.
It doesn’t matter if the methane disappears in 12 years— it doesn’t matter if the CO2 will disappear in 100 years.
No it doesn’t.
Emissions are going up. Cows and livestock contribute emissions. They contribute about 15% globally.
We need more sustainable agricultural and livestock production, which includes less production.
Quoting wonderer1
Mikie tried to imply that I am not an adult. I simply corrected him.
Can you not see that reducing biogenic carbon has very different effects to reducing non-biogenic carbon?
A methane molecule is a methane molecule, and a CO2 molecule is a CO2 molecule, whether it is biogenic or non-biogenic. The effect on global warming is the same no matter whether the carbon is biogenic or non-biogenic. But the effects on other things are very different
Reducing non-biogenic carbon does not require as many changes to things like the farming industry, and does not require people to change their diet (which they might not want to do). It doesn't affect the types of foods produced and the amounts of foods produced, compared to reducing biogenic carbon.
Reducing biogenic carbon is likely to meet more resistance. Fighting global warming is hard enough as it is. Why make it harder? Many people don't like tofu or meat substitutes, and many people are not willing to give up meat.
Do you want cooperation or resistance?
Fruits, nuts, chickens, and crops all require transport to market.
Clearing the land and transporting things mostly uses non-biogenic carbon at the moment. So these activities should be made as efficient as possible.
One thing to consider is that not all beef and dairy production is the same. American production (and anywhere else that's been bullied by Americans) is not particularly efficient. A lot of pesticide and petroleum based fertilizer has been used. Corn production goes into beef, which again, isn't an efficient way to feed cattle. So if your local beef production is efficient, you may find that you're talking apples and oranges with an American. See what I'm saying?
Please read this article. Dr. Frank Mitloehner is one of the authors of this article.
Quotes from the part with the title "Methane vs Biogenic Methane":
Look at Figure 5 and Figure 6 on page 5.
Quotes from the part with the title "Climate Impact Potential/GWP* (GWP-Star)":
Look at Figure 7 on page 7.
Figure 7 shows that CO2 accumulates but methane does not accumulate.
One of the problems with many articles is that they don't discuss the difference between biogenic methane and non-biogenic methane. And they talk about "emissions" (outputs), but don't talk about "influxes" (inputs").
This article talks about the difference between Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane early in the article, but later just talks about Methane (without splitting it into Fossil Methane and Biogenic Methane).
The key points are that:
- fossil methane causes more global warming because when it breaks down it adds more CO2 to the atmosphere
- a constant emission of biogenic methane does not cause any ADDITIONAL global warming because when it breaks down the CO2 is absorbed by plants.
Yes Frank, I see what you are saying.
The country that I live in is very efficient at producing lamb and beef, I am not sure if this is totally true, but I read once that our lamb and beef has a lower carbon footprint even when it is flown to the other side of the world, than the lamb and beef produced locally there.
And our government here wants to cut back our lamb and beef production to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement. They seem to think that it is better for other places to produce lamb and beef locally with a huge carbon footprint, rather than use our lamb and beef with a smaller carbon footprint.
Can you see why the problem of global warming won't get solved?
And that's just wrong. If you're very efficient, then you're a model for everyone else to follow. Not only are you helping the climate by being so efficient, your meat is healthier than what you'd get elsewhere.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
It won't be solved by humans as they are now. I agree with that. We can change though. We can morph into a species that reacts intelligently. I'm not guaranteeing that will happen, I'm just saying that we have a history of being incredibly adaptable. It's possible.
Yes they do, and are.
Even staying at a constant level for “12 years” is hugely problematic. We need to decrease emissions, not keep them the same and not increase them.
Try reading something other than one guy from the meat industry.
The big difference between you and me Frank, is that you are an optimistic pessimist, and I am a pessimistic optimist.
Wow! I think that's actually true about me. I accept death. It would take a while to explain why, but I'm ok with oblivion. It's from the door to oblivion that you can see how beautiful it all really is.
How are you a pessimistic optimist?
Try reading what I quoted.
Look at the graph that you posted and ask yourself, "has the rate of methane emissions been constant over the time period 1984 to 2022 (38 years)?".
Methane emissions do NOT accumulate if the rate of methane emissions is constant.
I can see that there are possibilities for solving problems (like solving global warming). But I am cynical and don't believe that people will do what is required. The reasons include self interest (at many levels, individuals, groups, countries, etc), greed, hatred, ignorance, arrogance, suspicion, doubt, lack of caring for others, etc.
Somebody suggested that the reason that we have never found evidence of aliens is that all civilizations destroy themselves before achieving interstellar travel. Increasing technology usually means more powerful energy sources. Will anybody misuse it (accidently or on purpose) and destroy the world?
Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
I think that Murphy was an optimist. :grin:
Good ole Murphy. But necessity is the mother of invention. I wouldn't rely on good intentions. Most good intentions are a veil behind which lies the same old greedy buttheadedness. You have to give up on the goal to finally realize the ends don't justify the means. It's a Protestant principle. Do they have Protestants where you are? :razz:
Methane emissions do accumulate and are accumulating. The graph is pretty easy to understand.
We don’t want them staying the same— we want them to decrease. Same as CO2.
The rest is just talking out our asses.
You keep repeating yourself by quoting the same source (which I have already read) and ignoring my questions/responses.
Two key questions that you need to answer
1. ------------
Virtually every source available (NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc) states that methane is responsible for 14% of the total global warming and that livestock production is a significant part of that. Dr. Mitloehne seems to be denying that. So for the record are you saying that NOAA, IPCC etc are all wrong? Yes or no.
2. -------------
Quoting Agree to Disagree
YOUR SOURCE states that reducing biogenic carbon is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global warming and they are actively working on reducing methane production from cattle farming (details in your article). So please choose - do you agree with your source or not?
We have looped around in this back & forth 3 times now - if you have something new or different to say I will continue this conversation. Otherwise I give you the last word.
Without any awareness of irony.
You guys aren't talking about the same thing, Eric. His source claims that there's an opportunity to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere if we reduce the methane emissions from livestock farming. He hasn't contested that. He's just saying that as it is, (probably more so in his country where farming isn't as inefficient as it is here) livestock farming is net-zero because the CO2 the cows put out is reabsorbed by the plants they eat, so it's a cycle.
You're talking about a different issue: which is that we can go beyond net-zero and make farming net-negative. The plants the cattle and sheep eat will have to absorb CO2 that's from somewhere other than farming. Like from your gas tank. See?
It can be confusing trying to make sense of Agree's multiple claims & evasions. I have been narrow focusing on two of his (I assume that's his preferred pronoun) stated positions - one of which is based on the papers by Mitloehne (who we know is an industry shill) - and the other which contradicts Mitloehne.
1) Provided it does not increase, so called biogenic CH4 is not contributing to global warming
This is a claim made by Mitloehne. Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source. I have no illusions that Agree will change his mind on this - my mission here is simply to get him to acknowledge that Mitloehne is all by himself in making this claim. Of course Agree cannot get himself to do this - instead he keeps repeating the quotes from Mitloehne.
As we all know, biogenic CH4 is increasing every year, so this point is mute, but even under the counterfactual assumption of no increase it is still false.
2) We should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2
Agree has repeatedly stated that it is a mistake to try to reduce biogenic CO2 and we should concentrate on reducing non-biogenic CO2. And here he contradicts his own source! Mitloehne's stated mission is to reduce CH4 production from cattle production through various means. Whatever else we may think, reducing CH4 emissions from any source is a good thing. So I am trying to get Agree to acknowledge that he is contradicting his source.
Re this second point: Of course we would be much better off if we stop raising cattle for food altogether. And you could argue the point that such reduction is insufficient AND lulls us into believing that we are doing everything we can - but again that is a separate discussion.
I was talking about you Mikie. :grin:
:yawn:
Yeah, because of the two of us, I’m definitely the ignorant one. Now tell us more about how cattle don’t contribute to global warming…
Could you give an example of that?
Thanks Frank, you have explained the situation better than I have. Many of the other people in this discussion are talking about a different issue to the one that I am talking about.
:up:
They are less costly to transport and process than beef cattle. Also, they can be sold locally thus avoiding the need for abattoirs and transport. Chickens can be made ready for the cooking by the famer. Of course, so can cattle on a small scale, but it is a much greater undertaking.
I am not generally in favor of large scale, monoculture cropping, in any case, and the land that is suitable for cattle may well not be suitable for crops. Are you aware of how much forest in South America is being cleared for beef cattle farming?
In 2019, global methane concentrations rose from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1866 ppb:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/methane/
This additional methane is coming from human activity: https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/methanebudget/20/hl-compact.htm
And per the above this additional methane is responsible for at least 14% of global warming (other estimates are higher).
Now consider this statement by Mitloehne - which our friend Agree keeps quoting:
“when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years, no additional global warming occurs”
So think this through. The current level of concentration is roughly 1900 ppb and this contributes 14% of global warming. The plain language meaning of the phrase “when a steady amount of methane is emitted for more than 12 years” is that the there is a balance between the methane converting to CO2 and new methane being generated by all sources. I.e., in 12 years the concentration of methane would still be 1900 ppb.
So Mitloehne is saying that in 12 years, even tho the level is still 1900 ppl, somehow these new molecules of methane (which replaced the ones that converted to CO2) will somehow no longer contribute to global warming. Really??? Are the laws of physics going to change in 12 years? Do the new molecules of methane have some special property that the current molecules do not have? I think not.
In a sense my statement “Of course this is false and is contradicted by the evidence from every reliable source” is not quite accurate. It would be really bizarre if a research scientist were to make the statement such as - our predictions are based on methane behaving the same in the future. That would be roughly equivalent to saying our estimates are based on the sun still rising in the east and setting in the west.
So I will re-phrase my statement: “No reliable source has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas.”
I applaud your patience and explanations.
What’s frustrating is that most of this could be avoided if we just say to ourselves “Maybe when thousands of scientists around the world tell us that methane emissions from livestock are a problem, we should take that seriously.”
Right. So let's start with some common ground, ok?
There is a carbon cycle. When you eat, you take in carbon in the form of fats, carbohydrates, and protein. Your body decomposes and metabolizes these substances to create ATP. The use of ATP increases the amount of dissolved CO2 in your bloodstream, making your blood acidotic. Fairly quickly, the carbonic acid would screw up your heart and you'd die if your body didn't do something about this. In fact, it does two things: your kidneys buffer the acid with bicarb, and the CO2 dissolves out of your blood into the air in your lungs. You exhale the CO2 out and it travels around the atmosphere.
When you exhale, you're increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere by a tiny bit. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere rises a little every time you breathe out. If it's summer time, the plants around you will absorb a fair amount of that CO2. Some will be absorbed by bodies of water and rocks. The rest will just float around.
Before we move on, do you agree with the above?
You asked a question & I answered. If you disagree with me - if you feel that Mitloehne is correct then make the case and I'll respond.
Otherwise I suggest you go out to NOAA web site - they will provide the answers to all these issues.
Ok. Have a wonderful day.
:clap:
You mean you don’t want to get lectured about the basic physics of CO2 from a [s]physics professor[/s] internet rando?
No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
No true Scotsman has ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. Because that would mean that he was not a true Scotsman.
Also, very few unreliable sources have ever stated or even hinted at the possibility that in the future methane may no longer be a greenhouse gas. You have introduced a red herring. Nobody is disputing that methane is (and always will be) a greenhouse gas.
I am working on a post to describe the whole situation. It takes into account the 4 types of gas that need to be considered:
- biogenic CO2
- biogenic methane
- fossil CO2
- fossil methane
The amount or concentration of methane in the atmosphere depends on both biogenic methane and fossil methane, and the fact that methane breaks down to CO2 and water vapor after about 12 years.
Mikey, that was all stuff you should have learned in a high school biology class. I wonder about you sometimes. :confused:
Mikie was participating in "School Strikes for Climate" the day that they taught that stuff. :grin:
Everybody knows that the best way to solve global-warming/climate-change is to NOT get a good education. :sad:
Nobody has time for education. :razz:
Education is not needed when you already know everything. :cool:
True.
To begin, we must doubt everything including the concept of climate. Could be an evil demon tricking us!
:fear:
I intend to post actual news updates here from time to time. Deniers will always deny, but so what? Just another voice in the hubbub.
That is sad.
Quoting Wayfarer
:up:
In pre-industrial times methane was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). Methane is currently at 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. This additional methane from human activity contributes 14% of global warming.
The rate of warming since 1981 is 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.
0.14 * 0.32° F = 0.0448° F ( 0.025° C)
So methane is currently causing roughly 0.0448 °F ( 0.025° C) increase in global temp per decade.
The energy sector (i.e. fossil methane) is responsible for around 40% of total methane emissions attributable to human activity, second only to agriculture. Biomass burning contributes a small amount. So to make the math easy let's say that biogenic methane is contributing 1/2 of that increase: 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Again to make the math simple, assuming that a constant emission of both biogenic and fossil methane is emitted over the next 12 years, what will the approximate methane concentration be in 2035?
A) less than 1900
B) 1900
C) greater than 1900
[EDIT]
Of course the answer is 1900 ppb. If you are emitting a constant amount of methane then that will replace the methane that is breaking down into CO2.
So a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2023 and 2035 will continue to contribute an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) (actually a bit more since this is a 12 years not 10). And if we have a constant emission of biogenic methane between 2035 and 2047 then the biogenic methane will contribute YET ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C). And so on.
Have I finally made myself clear?
I have read your analysis carefully and there are a number of points that I disagree with. To prevent things from getting too complicated I will just point out 1 of the problems in this reply.
Quoting EricH
You admit that emitting a constant amount of methane each year will not increase the total amount (or concentration) of methane in the atmosphere. In your example it will still be 1900 ppb.
If the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is constant then how can it be causing additional global warming?
Answer: Your calculation of an ADDITIONAL 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) of warming is not based on emitting a constant amount of methane each year. It is based on the amount of methane being emitted each year increasing.
Sigh. I'll try one more time.
The assumption is that the amount of biogenic methane remains constant.
If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade, then that by itself is going to increase global temp by 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade - because that's what it is doing today and it's going to continue to do that (the laws of physics are not changing).
I.e., If the current global temp is X and biogenic CH4 remains constant in the atmosphere, then in 10 years (ignoring everything else) the global temp is going to be X + 0.0224° F
Again this is based on the amount of biogenic CH4 being constant. Now if the emission rate were to go down then the contribution to global warming would go down (less than 0.0224° F per decade). And if CH4 emissions were to go up even more (as seems likely) then the contribution to global warming would be even higher than 0.0224° F per decade.
I can't think of a way to make this any simpler or more obvious.
[Edit]
In case it was not clear, the biogenic CO2 is NOT contributing to global warming in this simplified scenario because it is re-cycled by plants.
[Another edit]
Perhaps the confusion here is with the word "additional". Would you agree with this sentence:
If the total amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere is constant then it will not cause any additional warming above & beyond what it is currently causing - 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade.
I agree that the word "additional" makes things more confusing.
But I disagree with some of your assumptions.
Quoting EricH
The phrase "contributes 14% of global warming" can be interpreted in different ways. Does it refer to "14% of the AMOUNT of global warming" or "14% of the RATE OF INCREASE of global warming"?
Quoting EricH
This may be true but the overall global warming effect of biogenic methane is different to the overall global warming effect of fossil methane. Because biogenic methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is taken up by plants. Fossil methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O and the CO2 is NOT taken up by plants. Your statement is about "emissions", not about "effect on global warming".
Quoting EricH
This statement is incorrect and I am not saying that the laws of physics are changing. If biogenic methane stays constant over the next decade then that by itself will not increase the amount of global warming. Your calculation of 0.0224° F ( 0.012° C) per decade is NOT based on constant emissions of biogenic methane.
I am working on a "flow diagram" which will show the difference between biogenic methane, fossil methane, biogenic CO2, and fossil CO2. I will post it on this discussion when it is finished. It will probably take me a day or two.
But there’s no reason to worry, because some guy on the internet recently learned the term “biogenic carbon cycle” from a meat-producer website.
If the Arctic permafrost abruptly melted it would put up a ginormous amount of methane and we'd all die. That could happen at any point. Like tomorrow morning.
We could all wake up dead tomorrow. Like everybody. :grimace:
I've had a full life. Getting fuller every day. Every extra day is a blessing, make the most of it.
That's it. :up:
There is such a thing as overthinking an issue.
I'll have to think about that.
Good one!
(rimshot)
It is closer to being correct than it is to being incorrect. Greenhouse gases act like insulation. So global temperatures start to increase when the insulation effect increases, and will eventually reach a stable temperature for any stable increase. The time it will take to stabilise, and the temperature it will eventually stabilise at, are extremely difficult to model but the time-frame will be decades, if not centuries. So the assumption that warming will continue due to a steady state of greenhouse gases is very much closer to the truth, than that the planet will stop warming immediately when greenhouse gases stop increasing.
But as it happens, CO2 and CH4 levels are still increasing.
I am not sure. I will have to think about it. :chin:
Just don't overdo it.
Firstly the recognition that the planet goes through cyclical long term temperature changes and secondly that we’re pumping way to much CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution and the carbon footprint has expanded exponentially especially in industrialised nations.
Having said that I’d say climate change is real and that within a short time frame we’ve sped the global warming cycle up a little bit
More than a bit. At an alarming, unprecedented rate.
Yeah, so let’s just forget about it and relax. That’s worked wonders so far.
This is an existential issue. We could use more thinking, not less.
You make a very interesting point. This is the view that most climate scientists believed and they have told the public about this.
However, some climate scientists has started rethinking this issue. See the following NASA webpage:
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change
That's new. They used to say the lag was a century or more. :up:
Being a cynical old man I wondered if they made this up because they knew that people wouldn't bother fighting global warming if the effects were centuries away. :scream:
I don't know. It's not a good idea to lie to people. Once they find out you lied, they won't believe anything you say.
No they haven’t.
If we stopped. Not if we keep emissions constant. And within a decade or so the RISE in temperature should flatten.
Temperatures would plateau but remain elevated for many centuries. Not hard to understand.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
How ignorant and arrogant a person has to be to think this is astounding.
"Greenhouse gas" isn't a single substance; methane, CO2, CFCs, and other gasses all have varying periods of time before they are broken down. A cubic foot of methane gas lasts about 12 years but absorbs much more heat than the much longer lasting CO2. CFC gas lasts a long time because it is non-reactive. However, it is very good at absorbing heat.
We are not adding a lot of CFCs to the atmosphere, but what we have added lingers a long time.
SO, if we cut methane pollution -- which we can and should do immediately, the benefit would show up relatively quickly -- 10 years. But that would not solve the whole problem.
We were talking about the lag between when the CO2 hits the atmosphere and when the effects kick in. At one time models showed that most of the effects of the CO2 we're putting up now won't be felt until the next century. Agree is saying they've backed that down to decades.
It is meant to be a starting point for discussing the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon. I will post a picture of the full Carbon Cycle including Fossil Carbon soon.
Are you saying that the climate scientists at NASA are wrong?
I don't think she understands what we were talking about.
I’m saying you don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. There’s nothing to “re-think.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001
Your original claims were ignorant and bogus - as usual:
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Try reading what was said.
From your link:
I was not aware that there was previous work saying that "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly".
The quote does indicate that "the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries".
I had read that climate scientists said that a certain amount of global warming was "locked in" even if we stopped emissions today.
Right. It is. From your own quote:
This corresponds with what @unenlightened was saying. At least how I read it. So your talk about how climate scientists “changed their thinking” was a red herring, and the quote you provided from NASA only reiterates what was said.
The diversion of talking about CO2 and temperature lag is exactly that: a diversion.
Some people, (not thinking of you) are always looking for an interpretation or 'flaw' or angle that gets us off the hook.
What I want to say to @agree to disagree is that we are on the hook, and we won't be getting off the hook through reinterpretation. Only by altogether stopping greenhouse gas production can we avoid getting cooked.
Yes. The level of GHGs in the atmosphere now, means that global warming is going to continue for a long time, even if all the human contribution to the GHG content of the atmosphere ceased immediately.
That isn't inconsistent with saying, "Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly." A simple relevant curve is an asymptotic approach to a new temperature stability point. Consider the following graph, but with the vertical axis being temperature and the horizontal axis being time:
Suppose all of the excess GHGs in the atmosphere had just been dumped into the atmosphere today. For such a thought experiment we would expect the temperature of the Earth to increase along a similar curve. Most of the increase in temperature will occur relatively quickly, with the asymptotic approach to a new stable temperature going on for a long while after.
Of course the actual picture is more complicated, but does that help in understanding why the two statements under discussion aren't contradictory?
Yes, that does help. Thank you for the clear explanation.
When you say "altogether stopping greenhouse gas production" are you including emissions of biogenic methane?
- there are just under 1 billion cows in the world
- there are over 1 billion sheep in the world
- there are about 1 billion goats in the world (this has increased by more than half in the last four decades)
Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the long-term?
Would killing all cows, goats, and sheep (all of which are Ruminants) help to solve the problem of global warming in the short-term?
Well, this problem (like most problems involving humans) isn't an issue of not figuring out what to do, it is a problem of actually doing it.
There's the rub. People don't want to make the sacrifices necessary to really combat the problem. Also,
"While loss and damage was discussed at the Paris climate talks in 2015, progress has been slow. Industrialized countries have been reluctant to commit funding, concerned it could lead to being legally liable for the impacts of climate change. At this year's climate talks, developing countries say it's a crucial part of climate justice."
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/11/1054809644/climate-change-cop26-loss-and-damage
Money is the answer to 99% of all questions, including why can't we solve/mitigate climate change?
So far, all the climate models pronounced realistic and likely have under-estimated the effects seen already We have seen in Venus, that extreme, runaway global warming is not impossible to the point of being inimical to life and unsurvivable by humans.
But no worries chaps, carry on eating beef and flying round the world on holiday, all our politicians are very stable geniarses, and will solve the problem before anything bad happens, global oil and global meat are on the case.
True. It's just a point that climate nerds who read a lot about it would be interested in: "hey! they changed that!"
Quoting BC
He hasn't suggested that we aren't on the hook. People hungry to pile on have shown their disregard for him by continuously trying to pin that on him. It's probably a psychological problem on their parts.
Thank you for saying what we’re all thinking.
How odd that it’s this one issue — cows — that you want to dwell on, and yet repeatedly get wrong.
No one is suggesting we “kill all cows.”
Your particular brand of climate denial hasn’t even been very entertaining.
What he had to say was really interesting. He comes from a part of the world where cattle and lamb farming is ultra efficient, but his government is struggling to adhere to Paris climate accords, so they're going to try to reduce meat production.
Meanwhile on the other side of the world, there's no interest at all in the meager Paris accords and meat production is crazy inefficient and floods the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer.
So he feels like idiots are running the world, which is true.
So Mikie and Benkei agree with each other. What were you saying about two idiots agreeing? :joke: :joke:
I have also introduced sheep and goats. They are all ruminants and 3 billion ruminants must produce a hell of a lot of methane. Not to mention the methane from their dung.
What do you want to do about this?
I must be a glutton for punishment to continue this, but I'll try one more time.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Jeez! How many times do I have to say this? Yes.
I'll try a slightly different approach. Maybe this time it will sink in.
In pre-industrial times CH4 was at roughly 722 parts per billion (ppb). CH4 is currently at roughly 1900 ppb. This increase is due to human activity. 1900 - 722 = 1178 ppb. I'll round up to 1200 to make numbers simpler. Biogenic CH4 is responsible roughly 1/2 of this = 600 ppb.
Once again, the assumption behind this thought experiment is that biogenic methane stays the same, so the concentration stays at 600 ppb. This 600 ppb is currently causing global temps to increase by 0.0224° F per decade. Divide by 10 and it is causing global temps to increase by 0.00224° F per year. Divide that by 365 to get the daily increase (I'll let you do the math on this one).
Now every day a certain amount of these CH4 molecules decay to CO2 - likely the ones that have been around the longest. Hello plants! Here's some nice CO2 for you. Yummm. No contribution to global warming by those CO2 molecules.
Meanwhile, back in the atmosphere, those CH4 molecules that decay to CO2 are replaced by an equal number of brand new CH4 molecules. How do we know it's equal? That's the assumption behind this thought experiment - the total biogenic methane stays constant. So each day, new CH4 molecules are created courtesy of the cattle industry (among others). And at the end of each 24 hours we still have CH4 at 600 ppb. And each day those nasty CH4 molecules are doing their very best to trap heat and make the earth a little bit warmer.
So after 10 years you add up the daily contributions and - once again assuming that the biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays at 600 ppb - the earth will be 0.0224° F warmer.
Quoting Agree to Disagree
It's based on the amount of biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere staying the same, so any CH4 which converts to CO2 is replaced by an equal amount of newly created CH4. That is the plain language meaning of the phrase "biogenic methane stays constant".
Now you are saying this is incorrect, but you have not offered an explanation. If this is wrong, then you need to provide the correct answer. If biogenic methane in the atmosphere stays the same (at 600 ppb) how much warmer will global temps be due to this?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
Oh Lord, give me strength. Look, knock yourself out if it makes you happy, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. So one more time. If you cannot provide a coherent answer to this question then it will clear that you simply do not know what you're talking about.
If biogenic CH4 in the atmosphere stays the same, how much warmer will global temps be in 10 years due to this biogenic CH4?
So once you've put your coat on, you don't get any warmer unless you keep putting more coats on?
Your body is a heat generator. The earth isn't.
It is, as a matter of fact, but the warming comes mostly from the sun; but the insulating effect is comparable, particularly in the way that it takes some time for the insulation to have an effect. Stop defending the indefensible for god's sake! You keep the coat on and the heat gradually builds up. and it works the same when you insulate a planet in such a way that the radiant heat can get in, but the lower energy emitted heat cannot get out.
Okey dokey.
It really isn't at all okey dokey, pardn'r. It’s a scandal, an outrage, and a looming catastrophe. And you are gaily peddling ignorant bollocks. Your vacuous posts are literally lethal, because people are already dying while your denials and prevarications continue to impede agreement.
"You try any preversions I'll blow your head off."
-- Colonel Bat Guano
"Fuck off, you self-satisfied, ignorant blow hard!"
Mickey Mouse.
Marriage Counselor: "So Micky, I hear you saying you think Minnie is mentally... unstable?"
Micky. "I didn't say she was mentally unstable. I said she was fucking Goofy."
Yes, you’ve introduced all kinds of issues— one silly thing after another, all shown to be ridiculous. But by all means continue— it’s good for others to watch new denialist “views” get debunked over and over.
People barely get involved with local politics unless it quite literally immediately affects them (and then not even most of the time). How do you expect people to care about anything further than that? Politics is just characters in media talking. People barely take actions that help their local communities let alone "The Climate". And that's only talking about people who agree with what the climate scientists are saying or if they do agree, who think that something can be done and it's not a foregone conclusion.
People want cheap things. Adding costs to manufacturers to try to have cleaner emissions or greener processes will not make the consumer happy, lower output, and lower profit. Then, the politicians who claim to be "pro-economy" will rail against the regulations, and the process will continue.
Not to mention the epistemological claim of how to measure progress when there are so many sources adding to the problem. The pro-economy parties will say it's a risky, untested regulation that will hamper current success. And thus, ironically, they will take a line from Keynes and say:
"In the long run, we are all dead". And that is basically the cynical view of most political actions.
I don't expect other people to care. But I care. that's all. I'm just some guy railing about what I care about. Nothing for you to concern yourself about.
Hey we all care about something. You are railing publicly and I am answering publicly about an issue that affects the wider public.
Of course we do. This thread is about climate change. Anyone else care about that? Or shall we tell a few jokes and shoot the breeze?
I thought I was directly discussing climate change- specifically, the general mechanism for the inertia you are seeing.
Oh, well in that case, you are wrong. Covid has clearly shown that most people are very willing to make quite radical changes and sacrifices as long as they feel they are doing it to help others in a time of crisis and we are all acting together. So the problem is not that people are just greedy and uncaring.
That was a crisis people perceived could immediately harm them or their relatives- as in hospitalization or death. And even then, in some countries people ignored the guidelines or actively worked against it. Climate change, no matter how much footage of ice caps melting and X phenomenon isn't perceived by people as their problem. So I don't see how any of that really counters this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think that is what is the case. What is going on.
Believe me, brotha, I too care about something that is large in scope (antinatalism). And I too, lament how people just don't get how (in my case at least) not doing one simple thing, will prevent a future person's suffering, and will not violate their autonomy, and force them into the suffering entailed in existence. But you see, you will balk at what I say and call me a defeatist (though I take that term as a good thing), and many other things. What you think of me, many will think of your ideas on actions regarding climate change.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That truism has no force. People also want quality things. Of course, no one wants low quality expensive anything. Of course people don't want suffering. You make a philosophy of platitudes. There is more to life than want.
Polls have shown people do care, and think governments should be doing more. There's large turnouts at protests, there's increasingly bold direct actions taken all over the world to stop drilling, new coal plants, deforestation, etc. On local levels, especially in cities, you see all kinds of innovative policies being implemented. Some will work well, others won't.
Not to mention that the media is finally starting to report on climate change more seriously. This is partly because the effects all around us are undeniable. It's no longer a future problem, or one that "other people" have to concern themselves with. The evidence is everywhere on earth, and there's no longer anywhere to hide. Even here in New England, a fairly insulated place, there are very real effects.
There's a lot of work to be done. There's some movement, but not nearly enough -- and there may not be enough time, unless there's a drastic change in political will. Right now, the obstacles are twofold: corporate and political. The fossil fuel industry has massive pull, and outright owns the "conservative" media and major political party (Republicans). Through their propaganda, campaign funding and lobbying, they've sown "doubt" among their audience and inaction among their beholden politicians.
Some of the denial you see on this very thread, including stock phrases like "nothing can be done," "it's good for the planet," "the climate always changes," "people don't want to change," etc., all serves in a minor way to divert from what we should be doing, which is acting. Not just individually, but collectively. Discussing local energy committees or public utilities commissions and ways to attend/influence them, local organizations to involve oneself in, individual actions like more efficient energy use/electrification (heat pumps, solar panels, induction stoves, community solar programs, better insulation, energy audits, available tax credits and rebates), and so on and so forth, is what should be going on. There's lots of information all around us.
Instead we're left talking about cows and how they're really not a problem because they "don't contribute any 'additional' warming". Wonderful. Meanwhile the planet is burning.
The attitude that nothing can be done because "human nature" strikes me as another useless position -- one more impediment, more dead weight.
Right, because there's no reason to be "mean" or "overthink" or be "so serious" about ...anything.
Let's just take it easy and turn every thread into the Shoutbox.
I'm not saying people don't want to do something about climate change (well, some don't but..), it's just that to get that takes sacrifices that are too much for people to really want to take that action.
Consider a working class individual/family that goes to XMart (made up), because of its dirt low prices on food and goods. They are doing what is economically what they perceive in their best interests. They can't afford better quality food/products. XMart will do. In fact, it may be more expensive in the long run because it's cheaper quality, but that's not what they are thinking about in the short term.
Meanwhile, higher the economic totem pole, is the upper middle classer going to OrganicFoods the nifty high quality organic food market. They see that all the food is marked for organic and greener food sources. The prices are higher as a result so they can afford it. Meanwhile, they are driving to these high end green food marts in their Mercedes and BMW large SUVs.
Yeah one problem is the idea of separation between production and consumption. These issues of regulation affect the owners of manufacturing and agricultural enterprises. Most people are not these people. Thus, it's not "the people's problem", and thus it is left to the people that "do" care, special interests and such who wheel and deal in this kind of reform. Is it hitting someone's pocket book right now? People tend to care less.
Exactly. And that's basically what I have been saying. It's a main factor in the inertia.
If we could get fusion working that would help.
Quoting RogueAI
People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.
We can shape society through policy. Look at smoking. Or through technology — like streaming or digital music. I miss old record stores — but yet I’ve found myself defaulting to YouTube or Spotify because it’s that much easier — there’s less friction involved. Plus car (and computer) producers don’t bother selling their products with CD functions anyway.
None of that was my choice— if it were up to me, I’d go back to how it was before everything was on a phone. But things change and I go along because it’s easier or cheaper or more convenient somehow. Plus I don’t feel like it’s a major moral failing.
I suspect many Americans are in the same boat with climate change: they want a cleaner environment and a better planet for their kids and grandkids, but it’s expensive to buy solar panels and EVs— public transit either doesn’t exist or sucks, etc. Plus, not a lot is known about the best use of time.
That’s why it’s up to those who both care about and have a good understanding of the problem to educate and organize, to affect the necessary changes of economic and productive policy. The tobacco industry is a good example, but the fossil fuel industry is much more politically powerful, and more embedded in everything we use. So the task is harder.
So there’s no need to sacrifice much if we implement sensible changes. It’s a false choice. We subsidize fossil fuels right now. Going from an oil furnace to heat pump isn’t sacrificing anything. It’s actually an improvement.
Please stop talking common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:
Thanks Frank. That one made my day. :grin:
If pigs could fly that would help. :grin:
A word of caution Frank. Be careful what you wish for. :pray:
What do you mean?
Quoting Agree to Disagree
:grin:
Okay, I have thought carefully about what you are saying and I think that I can see what you mean.
I have been talking about the theoretical situation where the Earth is at its equilibrium temperature. In that case having a constant emission of methane does not cause global warming.
But the Earth is not at its equilibrium temperature at the moment. The equilibrium temperature is higher than at present (because of the current levels of CO2 and methane). So the current levels of CO2 and methane are causing global warming even if the emissions of biogenic methane were constant.
Am I describing what you are saying correctly?
Okay. I promise not to talk about cows until the next time that I mention them. :grin:
Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?
[sup]— Andrew Moseman, Sergey Paltsev · MIT Climate Portal · Oct 13, 2022[/sup]
BMW To Construct $108 Million Battery Logistics Facility
[sup]— Andrew Lambrecht · InsideEVs · Aug 27, 2023[/sup]
I thought about it too and I think he's right. If we dumped a dose of methane into the atmosphere now, wouldn't the energy it captures accumulate year after year? I think it would. After a decade, the accumulated heat would be higher than it was after the first year.
I think the conclusion is that if we dose the atmosphere with methane every year, it would contribute to global warming until equilibrium is reached, but I don't know how long that takes with a constant amount of methane.
What I am about to say will upset a lot of people. Don't worry Mikie, it is not about cows. :grin:
Big Oil is not purely evil. What do you want oil companies to do? Starve people of fossil fuels?
Starving people of fossil fuels will harm a lot of people. Especially poor people and developing countries. That is why we need to move away from fossil fuels slowly enough to avoid creating big problems.
Well off people may think that global-warming/climate-change is the biggest problem in the world. But some people are struggling just to afford food, shelter, warmth, energy, etc. For these people global warming is not their primary concern. Oil companies are supplying these people with what they want and need.
Sure, but we're having a tough time electing people (Democrats) who want people to make rather trivial sacrifices. The fossil fuel lobby (Republicans) controls the House! There are other factors at play, but if people really wanted to limit fossil fuels and transition to a greener economy, Democrats would be in much better shape.
"National Youth Turnout: 23% - That's lower than in the historic 2018 cycle (28%) which broke records for turnout, but much higher than in 2014, when only 13% of youth voted."
https://circle.tufts.edu/2022-election-center
Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change.
I wasn't even thinking about the equilibrium temp - but yes - I'm glad you finally got it. It takes an exceptionally honest person to admit they were wrong, so kudos to you both. :cheer:
Hey Agree: I hope that you will now review Mitloehner's article from U Cal that you referenced and reconsider your opposition to reducing biogenic methane emissions. Again - it's your source - and Mitloehner makes a pretty convincing case that (apart from anything else) reducing methane emissions from livestock farming is a relatively simple & cost effective way to slow down the rate of global warming.
Of course eliminating all livestock farming would be much better - but that's a separate discussion.
I don’t think that’s what it means at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Buddy, does everything have to come back to this one issue? Makes you sound a bit like a one-trick pony. I say this in a friendly way.
In a way…YES!!!
So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it?
I don’t think they realize the importance of voting. Some rather take stronger actions, for some it’s too difficult, etc. For some it’s apathy, yes, but not 3/4.
What do you think of this (methanisation of CO2): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212982023000938?via%3Dihub
And what about industrial photosynthesis: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c06390
They look very energy intensive but I think in some areas and at certain times (over production of solar or wind) this could be interesting. Instead of carbon capturing it, we recycle CO2.
If I was king of the world, though, my pet project would be solar powered desalination plants in N Africa, Chile, etc, wherever there is a seaside desert, providing lubrication for natural photosynthesis. Greening the desert looks to be a good way of directly cooling and absorbing CO2, and could eventually become self sustaining by attracting more precipitation. It could even include growing some human food for any starving humans round and about.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/solar-desalination-system-inexpensive-0214
If you think it through, Global warming is a crisis of too much free energy, rather than not enough, so the problem is the usual one of tidying up and organising - global housework - rather than a shortage of power.
Perhaps it is the case that there is something flawed in the hubbub of human production in general.
You say that there is more than wanting. The whole problem stems from "wants". The whole of human production and consumption is predicated on this base instinct. It isn't solely for some detached edification. Engineering doesn't come out of a vacuum. It comes out of demand. Sure, you can have your tinkerer that just likes to tinker. But the big projects are only had by way of large investments. That takes want. Want. Want. Want.
Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this.
Quietude, negation, non-production is reviled. But perhaps it is the inverse and it is production that is evil. It is lauded as that which sustains. But perhaps that is exactly the problem. Sustaining is perhaps no good.
Why do I picture some people here as if they are Bertrand Russells with pipes sitting in their cushy armchairs cluching pearls on a philosophy forum?
Ironically, for this grandfatherly image of him, he was more radical than most today I would gather, and on this forum. I'd love to discuss quietude and non-production with the idler. He wouldn't clutch at pearls.
Different ideas people. Different ideas than the unassailable ones.
I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.
That's part of it. However, it's a much deeper kind of pessimism about production I am talking about. Look at this, as I type on a keyboard with a bright screen, made in engineering labs and then off to (mostly) Asian production facilities to be shipped over to the distributors along with the tens of thousands of other parts I use daily. I don't focus on it until it's broke (I won't invoke Heidegger's "broken tool" here.. that bastard). But it's used to push information around. The information is instrumental too. So is survival. So is entertainment.
It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will.
Cool stuff, but anytime I see "Buddhist economics" I laugh a little. As I said above, the problem isn't economic at its root.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/834233
And that is really Buddhist [s]economics[/s].
What about economies of scale?
Economies of scale also apply to the cow industry (sorry Mikie :grin: - you can substitute any other industry if you don't like cows). Raising a few cows in a barn is probably much less efficient (in terms of fossil fuel per kilogram of cow) than bigger scale cow raising techniques.
Yeah but a lot of Schopenhauer is just bullshit.
In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. The person to read in this respect is Karl, not Arthur.
In 2022 there were just over 40,000 McDonald's restaurants in the world. Which do you think is more efficient in terms of fossil fuel use? McDonald's, or 40,000 small independent hamburger restaurants?
Adults are talking. Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant.
It is appalling that you are using ad hominem on The Philosophy Forum.
You are implying that I am not an adult. That is ironic, since compared to me you are a baby.
Why don't you address the issues that I have raised rather than try to insult me?
I thought that efficiency of fossil fuel use was relevant to a discussion about global-warming/climate-change.
Because your questions are inane and condescending. You ask insulting questions like that, expect responses of like kind.
Also, what’s truly “appalling” is your long line of thoroughly debunked, misleading, minimizing comments.
Feel free to chit chat with fellow climate deniers. Leave me out of it.
Operating thousand-cow dairies has downsides for both the cows and the community. 1000 dairy cows are going to spend very little time outdoors grazing and cud-chewing. A small operation (50 cows) can be pastured, and a good share of the cow manure will be deposited on the pasture. Fly larvae will help break it down, as will sun and air. Shifting 50 cows from one grazed pasture to an ungrazed one is doable. Moving 1000+ cows around is a cattle drive,
A thousand cow dairy barn will produce more manure than can practically and usefully be spread on fields -- so it goes into sewage lagoons or tanks where it will produce noxious by-products and likely pollute ground water or streams. 1000 cow dairies are likely to be milking 24 hours a day, each cow being milked 2 or 3 times daily. Maximizing production and profit is the reason for thousand cow dairies, and it's likely the cows will be getting bST (bovine Somatotropin) to increase milk production, which is hard on the cows.
Huge hog operations and massive chicken and egg production facilities are more efficient too -- but at the cost of the animals' quality of life and the quality of the end product. Pigs like to be outside -- they are probably the brightest bulb in the barn yard next to the dog. Chickens are, well, not "smart" but they benefit from movement outside as well -- actually being outside with room to move around and eat whatever is crawling around for an extended period of time.
I have looked at Mitloehner's article from U Cal again and I can see 2 statements that misled me. These are:
The first statement says that fossil methane is bad. This is correct and the same applies to fossil CO2.
The second statement says that biogenic carbon is not bad because it is part of a cycle. I assumed that biogenic carbon meant both CO2 and methane. While it is true that biogenic methane is part of a cycle, the amount in the atmosphere at any particular time can make the amount of global warming bigger or smaller.
Farming practices (e.g. farming efficiency, feed crop yields, veterinary care, sustainable feed practices, animal nutrition, etc) affect the amount of methane in the atmosphere. The number of cows also affects the amount of methane in the atmosphere.
So reducing the number of cows would lower the amount of biogenic methane in the atmosphere and lead to less global warming.
However, reducing the number of cows has some possible negative effects.
Many people want to eat beef and drink milk. These may become more expensive if supply is limited.
Many people will lose their jobs and have to retrain. Some people will not be happy about that. Farmers are obviously affected but there are many other associated jobs.
In the end the decision on the number of cows we should have is a compromise based on many factors.
You make many good points. I was only commenting on the efficiency of fossil fuel use.
Either that or they just don't give a flying fuck
Two odd things about this: 1) they decided to drastically increase their use of coal because it was so hot last year that the air conditioners were too big a load on their grid. And 2) that this is not particularly big news. Trump's latest circus is huge, but this, arguably a decisive fork in the road, is just miscellaneous news.
Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training.
With that in mind...The very fact that he is not spending his time inventing alternatives for coal power plants shows that he doesn't "give a flying fuck", to use the words of a wise man.
The fact that they're now building new coal power plants instead of nuclear means that humanity's chances of reining in CO2 emissions is fading. One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical?
The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course).
That sounds awfully rational.
• amount of fossil fuel deposits (let's say oil and coal)
• amount of fossil fuels burned by humans
since (or shortly before) the industrial revolution, something in that range?
I wouldn't expect much added to the deposits in this (geologically short) timeframe, but haven't come across solid numbers on available deposits. Numbers for burned fossil fuels since then are easier to come by, or estimates at least (Our World in Data). Graphing them out over time, should more or less be "opposite", the former going down, the latter going up, and adding them should more or less be constant over time in this timeframe.
There are cars, vehicles, machinery, houses, buildings, people, ..., all over the place, happily burning deposits in one way or other. Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff (geological timeframe) in a century or two without noticeable effects...? At least there's active research into fusion.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is a red herring, but we still do something about it. What's the worst that could happen? Longer oil supply? Less plastic in the oceans?
Suppose that anthropogenic climate change, pollution and all that is quite impactful, with consequences for future generations, and we do nothing about it. What's the worst that could happen?
Trolls would have us do nothing about it, despite evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change, pollution, etc.
I think it's classified. Just kidding. It would need to be a pretty recent assessment because of fracking. Pre-fracking numbers would be way too low.
Quoting jorndoe
It would take a few centuries to burn it all. There will definitely be a noticeable effect. :grin:
Quoting jorndoe
"Oil reserves" is complicated by the adjective "recoverable". Some oil is buried so deeply that more energy is required to obtain the oil than the oil itself contains. Western Canada's tar sands can be dug out and cleaned up enough to qualify as "crude oil" but the whole process is quite polluting.
Quoting jorndoe
Well, count the major energy companies as trolls, because they are not doing anything very significant about it. And they have company. While government at various levels have taken some actions, while various companies have either worked towards a lower carbon output or manufactured equipment to reduce green house gas emissions, the world response to the threat of a global heating catastrophe has been sluggish.
Unfortunately for us all, the world's energy economy was shaped into its present form what... 200 years ago? 150 years ago? 100 years? Changing a 100 - 200 year pattern of voracious resource consumption just can't be done quickly EVEN IF everyone was enthusiastic about it, and lots of people are not even slightly enthusiastic, but are bitterly opposed to the level of change that is required.
What percentage of humans are "trolls"? Perhaps trolls outnumber non-trolls.
I suspect that many people don't want to lower their standard of living despite the fact that there is evidence/consensus of anthropogenic climate change.
Don't tell Mikie because he/she thinks that the whole world is standing around a campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Right, hence the failure in the second supposition above.
Ego-priorities — of those that will be gone soon enough, leaving our children's children...
Just don't be surprised if such moral failure is met with scorn.
But changing path doesn't mean everyone goes back to stoneage living.
I think they would if they felt everyone was doing it collectively, but we would need a strong world government to make that happen.
"You would avoid doing something just because doing that thing contributes significantly to climate change? Wow, that's inconceivable." Literally the mindset of at least like half the planet. Not just the wealthy.
When you say "a strong world government", I think that you mean a "dictatorship".
Is that really what you want?
I don't think this is entirely fair. Doing something about anthropogenic climate change is reducing our use of fossil fuels. Reducing our use of fossil fuels is reducing our energy consumption. And without a certain surplus of energy, modern societies as we know them are simply not possible.
The worst thing that could happen, is the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, we can try to find ways to replace the energy we get from fossil fuels, but that is by no means something that is easy, there are trade-offs (economic as well as ecologic), and it takes a lot of time and costs a ton.
This is not just a matter of political will.
If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not?
That sounds awfully rational.
The source used by (I think, feel free to correct), briefly discusses strategies, solutions, consequences:
When will we run out of fossil fuels?
[sup]— Ama Lorenz · FairPlanet · Apr 30, 2023[/sup]
Just FYI, one of the numbers I was looking for was the net amount of available fossil fuels (over time). This would give an indication of net anthropogenic chemical/physical change of our shared environment, and then an assessment of net effects over time. ("Think we can burn all this accumulated stuff [...]".)
Anyway, I think only a minority of radicals demand immediate drastic political/societal change of the sort that destroys civilization, e.g. Ama Lorenz doesn't. On the other hand, I'd personally prefer not being among the generations of which our children's children say "they knew, and did nothing".
Do you have any goals which aren't related to global-warming/climate-change? What if the world dictatorship doesn't support or allow these other goals?
Frank, be careful what you wish for.
It's a cycle. Monarchy becomes corrupt and gives way to oligarchy (statesmen or clergymen), which become a burden on the people and gives way to democracy, which fails and gives way to monarchy. Over and over...
Frank, do you have a personal preference for which system you would like to live in? Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Democracy?
I think each one has a golden period in its youth, then they all turn to crap eventually. I think I'm living during the decline of modern democracy, maybe. So I'm seeing all the advantages to monarchy.
I assume that you live in America. I live in a commonwealth country and until recently had Queen Elizabeth as our reigning monarch. This worked very well because she had no direct political power in our country but she acted as our sovereign and head of state. This gave us the advantage of being a hybrid democracy-monarchy. It worked very well, but some people want us to become a republic.
One of the problems with this statement is the use of the vague term "we". Who exactly is "we"?
I assume that you mean everybody. But not everybody wants to do something. And how will the costs be distributed?
Maybe they only think they don't demand radical political change of that kind out of ignorance, because they don't understand what it would take to keep global warming below say 1.5 C.
When for instance Ama Lorenz says what is quoted below, it doesn't seem to me like she really gets what would be needed to replace the energy provided by fossil fuels.
Quoting jorndoe
The nummers she gives seem to be in the ballpark of what most experts agree on. We won't be running out of coal or natural gas anytime soon. Oil is a different matter, some think we may allready be over the peak, and the fracking revolution has only temporary delayed that downward trajectory. It's hard to give a definitive answer to this because, 1) we don't know what deposits are out there before we look for them and find them, 2) we don't know how technology will impact yields in the future before the technology exists and 3) countries probably obfuscate how much reserves they have in their deposits because of geo-political reasons.
The important thing is not necessary total reserves as such, but "usefull" reserves. What matters is Energy return on Energy invested (EROI). Reserves will technically never run out, because at some point it will take more energy to get out less energy. They will stop way before that point even, because we need a certain net energy surplus.
Most modern societies run on a high net energy surplus. They can do that because the EROI from fossil fuels was very high, and has remained relatively high because of new technologies (like fracking). The EROI of alternative energy sources is typically a lot lower. Can we keep modern societies with much lower net energy surplus, or can we find ways to increase net energy surplus without fossil fuels? Maybe, but it's by no means a certainty, not in theory and certainly not in practice.
So you know, it's easy to say we must phase out fossil fuels, it's another thing to know how we can do it in the timeframe necessary to avert climate change.
(For completion, you're free to add the remaining couple or so scenarios/permutations — climate change or not × do something or not — they just didn't seem as interesting.)
, damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Hmm Didn't that come up earlier?
Did it? Usually people either deny climate change or the consequences... or they "deny" the consequences of phasing out fossil fuels.
So, yes, damned if you do, and damned if you don't... what is left is figuring out what is least damned. There's still a lot of gradations to damnation.
I don't think she had political power anywhere, did she?
Such certainty...?
Well, unless sufficiently justified, the suppositions/scenarios above still apply to those "doomsayers", right?
[sup](I mean ... "Suppose [...] What's the worst that could happen?")[/sup]
Incidentally, I know someone, not a climatologist, that, with a big sigh, says we're too late, but still have to try.
The Holocene extinction is another factor here; something that ought to be addressed.
I don't think I'm saying anything out of the ordinary. We know climate is changing because of carbon emissions, and we know our economy and entire civilisation relies on the energy we get from fossil fuels. We also know that in 30 years we haven't managed to lower carbon emissions eventhough we have know it would become a problem.
None of this controversial or speculative. What is speculative, and in fact contrary to the evidence we seem to have, is that we can replace fossil fuels and all the infrastructure and economy that comes with that, and has been build up over 200 years, with a whole new alternative energy system without enormous changes to our societies.
I'm not just a doomsayer that says we can't and therefor shouldn't do something about it. I'm saying we should take serious the idea that it will be very difficult and will probably entail major economic and societal changes. I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will, and that it's all the doing a the rich or the immoral ceo's of oil companies, instead of a deep systemic problem that includes all of us.
Well said. It's becoming the mainstream approach to think in terms of adaptation. It's just common sense at this point.
It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.
It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue.
The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.
Queen Elizabeth became Queen due to the death of her father. The position of King/Queen had become more of a figurehead role by then. She had no direct political power but she had a lot of influence. She provided checks and balances to the politicians in commonwealth countries. The arrangement meant that both the Queen and the politicians didn't have absolute power (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them.
I don't know. The article said last summer's heat revealed the weakness of the grid. I guess you do need air-conditioning to manufacture the computer chips that the US won't export anymore. Assholes.
The point was: two coal burning power plants per week. Holy crap.
Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?
The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza.
This makes me wonder who in the west would benifit from the arrangement you have predicted. Is it crazy to look at those who push for the most radical green policies?
I didn't claim that. Only thing I did was question the black and white "no-brainer" distinction you set up between doing something about climate change and doing nothing about is. Solving this problem will be at least a balancing act between various issues, with a lot of trade-offs in all directions... that is all.
Please don't twist my words.
Yeah maybe this is it. I don't see the world like this. I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. That is the undercurrent force that constraints how far you can take political action in any given direction. Money probably can shift policies some degrees in other directions, but I don't think it is ultimately the driver behind all of this.
Quoting Mikie
Don't agree, it is the issue of our times ;-). Everything will pivot arround it.
Quoting Mikie
I haven't read the book... so I can't judge that. But as follows from what I said above, I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem.
As has become blatantly obvious here in Europe, with the energy crisis that started before the Ukraine war, people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. It's not that some polticians didn't want to take measures to try and solve it, it's that they would loose the following elections if any of their measures would lead to even modest increases in energy-prices.
I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed.
It comes down to a different analysis of power. Yes, political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion— especially in a relatively free country like the US. But what influences public opinion?
Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.
Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
Wikipedia the “investment theory of party competition.” Or see Tom Ferguson’s book “the golden rule.” When huge majorities of the public want something, it doesn’t matter. What actually happens in terms of policy aligns with what the wealthiest people want.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.
It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.
It can be manufactured only to a certain extend I would say.
Quoting Mikie
Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. This is a technical issue that is hard argue either way, I do realise that... but it is the point where this argument hinges on.
People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes.
You point to other countries that have sensible policies in place. I say these countries are some of the most wealthy in the world, and have exported most of their energy intensive industry to China as part of a globalised economy. That is largely the green-washing game Europe has been playing BTW, relocating its production capacity somewhere else, and importing the products where they are still made with a lot of carbon emissions. It looks good if you stop at the border, but climate change doesn't care where carbon gets emitted of course.
What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches.
Quoting Mikie
It not that black and white, but I do think there is something to it... And Europe will become largely economically irrelevant shortly. It is in a very precarius situation at the moment, thanks to, in no small part, the energywende. Let's hope we get bailed out by a mild winter again like last year!
Quoting Mikie
Sure, I don't want to absolve them of blame. They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. The problem isn't necessarily solved either in countries where these industries play little to no role .
EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.
Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.
But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.
Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.
You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.
People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.
Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?
I’d also Google Lee Raymond.
EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.
Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.
But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the C evidence became undeniable.
Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.
You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.
People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.
Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?
I’d also Google Lee Raymond.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
... becomes a rationale for not doing anything, then it better be right.
Elsewhere, unrelated, not directly anyway...
Microsoft funding new approach for carbon removal
[sup]— Nick Robertson · The Hill · Sep 7, 2023[/sup]
The effect of this political decision was that many people started vaping. Even people who had never smoked. Solving one problem caused another problem which some people think is as bad or worse.
Vaping didn’t become popular until much later, and is an entirely different thing. It too is now being regulated as an industry— rightfully.
But in any case, you’ve missed the point — as usual. If you can’t keep up with the conversation, just let the adults talk.
To answer the point that sometimes we make things worse when we're trying to make improvements, all you have to say is: "Yes, we should really be cognizant of that. Good point."
No personal attacks necessary. :grin: :up:
Vaping is largely about nicotine addiction. The same as cigarettes and tobacco. You could call it the nicotine industry. Nice flavors are added to entice young people into getting hooked. It is now the "cool" thing to do, like cigarette smoking used to be. How is this totally different?
Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it.
yeah, you dummy. What is your problem: trying to have a reasonable conversation on a philosophy forum. Jeesh...maybe you should find some children if you're trying to have a real philosophical discussion...but not here . . . Isnt that right @Mikie. :grin: :wink: :grin: :wink:
Quoting frank
Yeah, holy crap, it's an unholy mess.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
No idea, do you have an opinion on that?
As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. People in the west usually assume that the west is correct, and that China is wrong. But what if they have it the wrong way around. China is correct and the west is wrong?
The obvious difference between the west and China is that the west is mostly democratic, but China is not. Politicians in the west must convince the public in their country to vote for them. They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green policies is large enough or loud enough then western countries will enact green policies even if they will damage the economy.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil (pun intended). :grin:
I feel like there's some deep irony in this. Anybody else notice that?
"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that.
"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles
You said. "presumably, green policies are in fact better for that". Some green policies have negative effects. Many people think that "green" means the same thing as "good". This is not necessarily true. Is it "good" to have higher energy prices (often the result of "going green").
I was using the word "world" to mean both the literal planet AND everything else associated with the planet. Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective.
Your statement could be true if "world" meant just the literal planet.
Spoken like a true conservative (in the best sense of the word). But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. ..
Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests.
I just want to thank you for this comment. What with the beef industry giving out grants to California universities, the global oil and gas interests paying for US congressmen, and Monsanto funding the campaigns of local water quality checkers (this is a real thing, btw), it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever.
And also thank god for climate change click bait that makes me more aware of the price of that bubble couch I googled one time.
Isn't that about 80% of the discussion around climate change policy? Arguing about whether, and how much it will damage the economy, and whether it's worth it?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Of course the reality is that most people care much more about themselves and their immediate community than about the net benefit of the policies they support for people in distant lands with a different skin color and a widely different reality.
And this unfortunately means that there is very little actual good faith discussion on the quality of climate change policy. It gets drowned out by the very loud discussion on whether climate change is a globalist conspiracy. And the rest is mostly invented reasons like the poor children mining lithium as a smoke screen for the actual reason: That very few people like to accept painful cuts to their standard of living.
The brutal truth is that the current standard of living of developed countries is not sustainable given current technology.
But you win no elections by pointing that out, so we get a charade of feel-good policies, many of which are either stupid and inefficient or stupid and harmful, because the actual solution - cutting the per-capita energy consumption - is unpopular.
And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist). Because the people with high birth rates use up so little energy that they're not currently much of a concern from the perspective of climate change.
The real question is when this silly canard gets thrown into the garbage with the other false dichotomies.
I'm not seeing any indication that we're capable to succeed at the almost miraculous task of switching out energy supply in at most a few decades without cuts and economic dislocation.
Certainly the way we've handled the problem so far fails to inspire much confidence.
Well it has to be done. It either will or won’t. I don’t see the point of repeating over and over that this is a hard task.
Yes, we’re all in agreement: it’s very hard. We may not have enough time. We may never have the political will. There may not be the technological breakthroughs we need. And so forth.
Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die?
Yes, being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. But it is often different people who pay the price. A person who is old has a different perspective on global-warming/climate-change to somebody who is young.
To put things crudely, using your analogy, old people may be dead when the shit hits the fan. I know that this sounds selfish, but most people are selfish. You can probably blame evolution. :grin:
Quoting Sep 6, 2023
... and doesn't care about human economy.
Quoting Sep 6, 2023
It's a collective problem and up to humans to decide whether to do something or not.
The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse.
Yeah it's going to make problems worse, but not by as much as a casual scaling up would suggest.
The problem is not numbers, but resource use. A few billion poor people do not emit that much extra carbon dioxide. The real problem is the lifestyle of the rich people which many people who are not yet part of the rich people (i.e. the global middle class) wants to emulate. That is the emissions problem we need to adress.
And that's where it ties in with economic fears and the notion that global competition makes climate change policy undesirable. What we need to do is redefine our economic goals, away from high energy use. Almost noone is even attempting this, and the few that are often come from extreme positions which does not add to their appeal. But energy use is ultimately what it comes down to: We need to have a world where the rich people don't use (as much) more energy than what can be sustained.
Quoting Mikie
What I wanted to point out specifically is that a lot of the debate around climate change (once it is accepted that it's real and it is a problem) just fails to acknowledge the central notions that a) it's about global equity and b) if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central.
The kind of massive and rapid change we need would involve a level of public mobilisation that's akin to a war footing. But no-one, including the green parties, even attempts to tackle the problem at that scale.
And most of the discussion about the relative efficacy of different policies also fails to take the scale into account. Like the common argument that "well what's the point if we use less resources, someone else will use them instead". As if we'd not be majorly redisigning the entire global economy while doing it.
The West is stupid regardless.
It goes deeper than kneecapping the economy and reducing the general standard of living for all but the super wealthy. The west is opening the door for China to become the global hegemon. And it is unlikely that the imperial agenda that China would impose upon the west would be at all concerned with environmental sustainability. We all know China would devour the entire west for the benefit of ccp.
It is a fact that the "climate crisis" is inevitable as long as China does not get on board with the green agenda.
If the west did not have its head up its ass, its strategy would be to pause on the green agenda and exert what imperial power it has left to gain enough leverage so that it could impose a mandatory green policy on China (as well as other major perpetrators). Then once that's done go full throttle on its own greenwork.
If only it were that easy.
You're very welcome my good sir
Reducing the fossil fuel energy consumption, yes. But most of that can be replaced with greener technology. Electricity, transportation, etc. Agriculture and heavy industry is harder— but our governments can subsidize the transition.
Quoting Echarmion
We need more people pushing for these things, yes— especially at the local level of towns and cities.
Some people believe that the government can spend any amount of money without making anybody worse off. The reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. For example:
- collecting more taxes
- making budget cuts elsewhere
- causing inflation by printing money
Do you really now?
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/20/global-warming-history-china-hoax/
Goes to show the state of climate discourse.
There is a shortage of energy in some locations.
Quoting unenlightened
Excess energy judged by what standard? Better too much energy than too little. Can you ever have too much energy? Can you ever have too much money?
Quoting unenlightened
There is plenty of available energy if you are willing to use coal, oil, and natural gas. Energy poverty can occur if people can't afford the cost of energy. "Going green" usually increases the real cost of energy to the consumer.
Gregory Bateson, Roots of Ecological Crisis. 1970
I'm planning fairly soon on re-reading Steps to an Ecology of Mind and starting a thread if anyone is interested. It may be of interest to know that the politico-socio-psychological aspects of environmentalism have been much discussed since the early 70's and earlier. Obviously some aspects of the text will be out of date, but the methodology and analytical insights should stand up better, and repay careful consideration.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Answer your own stupid questions in reference to your own ignorant pontifications.
The energy of the sun falls upon the earth and is sufficient to the life thereon, to the extent that excess energy has been stored by life-processes over geological time. Judged by the standard of the energy gradient and temperature range needed for life, there is a shortage of energy at the poles. So the fuck what?
I’d be interested, for one. I hope you do so.
Well, after you put it that way, I suppose not. But I would like to.
Would you move to an underground city to reduce energy expenditure?
Yes, and then everything will be perfect with rainbows and bubblegum and little fuzzy bunny wabbits.
How naive can you be? There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. And it would take the greatest of fools to believe that once China has attained global hegemony through its industrialization (while the west cripples its own energy infrastructure with green technology that is too worthless to steal), that it would sabatoge its own supremacy by reversing course into green policies.
Never, and if mandated by PTB, I would resist to the death. Underground cities are a bad omen for humanity.
I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea.
You should have led with it being Asimovian. And I didn't know we would have parks and surface access.
In that case I'm more open to it. But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia.
Definitely when it comes to invountary confinement. I know I wouldn’t thrive in a prison cell.
Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city?
Or a nuclear sub probably. They go out for six months straight sometimes.
That doesn't exactly dound like a picnic. Open pastures where I can run and frolic are more my cup-o-T.
I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists? I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness.
Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control.
Quoting frank
I think the powers that be, which benefit from a totalitarian underground city, would never leave the surface alone and allow it to thrive. These are the most boring types, those who wish to impose their boring misery on others.
This is starting to feel allegorical.
There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating.
It doesn't require evidence. At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. But when 90% have drowned, starved, or died in migratory conflicts, minds will change. There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid.
They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time.
Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Me too. When I'm in the woods something unwinds inside me that I didn't even know was up tight.
Evidence woud help relieve suspicions.
Quoting unenlightened
Good, we can agree on that. This certainly makes the green agenda in the west appear like a futile idealistic pipe-dream.
Quoting unenlightened
I never meant to insinuate that China is stupid. On the contrary, China knows exaclty what it is doing, and one of those things is to exploit the West as it sits there neurotically with its thumb up its butt.
One example is its securing of rare resources that the West has become increasingly dependent on. And even if they are attempting to develop green technologies, they are too smart to implement it on a large scale until it has been proven to outperform the currently operating energy infrastructure.
I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary.
Quoting frank
These uncowardly lions would be labeled terrorists no doubt.
Quoting frank
You said it brother, there is no greater feeling of freedom than doing your duty out in the wilderness.
:lol:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
no doubt
I don't think EROI is getting much better with renewables, there's a cap to how much they can improve in effeciency because of the underlying physics of those technologies.
Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too. That is the flip side of progress/growth, it allways seems to involve externalising costs. You seem to think we can have both, even though historically there's almost a one to one relation between growth and damage to the enviroment. There's no evidence that decoupling those two is possible in practice.
Quoting Mikie
This isn't about blame. I think ultimately all of this is more an unfortunate accident of history/evolution. We need food, shelter, social status etc etc, and have had to labour continuously to provide those things. Of course we are going to use free energy that makes things easier.... We aren't really equipped to deal with all this complexity and long term planning and allways have more or less made stuff up as we go.
Quoting Mikie
People are against having to pay a large portion of their hard earned money to pay for basics like energy. This is pretty obvious, and shouldn't need much defence.
And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much. Most of so called "subsidizing" the IMF reported on have been governement contributions to the energy bills of the poor, and counting not payed for externalities as "subsidies". Direct subsidies have been only a very small portion of that.
Governments have unprecedented debt already. Sure you could say why not pile on some more, but then you're only kicking the can ahead of you some more... someone will have to pay for it eventually.
Quoting Mikie
We shall see. These kind of things play out over decades. If Germany's economy tanks, and it drags Europe with it, or if it starts its coal plants again because ernergy price get to high otherwise... I wouldn't call that a succes.
Quoting Mikie
Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies. The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction... Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the roof of the White house because he was scared of running out of energy in the wake of the oil crisis. He was an ideological child of the whole limits to growth movement that started in the early seventies.
Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.
So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Another canard.
Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.
Compare to fossil fuels and there’s no contest.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
It’s not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice, and one made because of greed. Capitalism isn’t a natural law.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Right— so let’s lay down and die. Let’s let the world burn because it’s not economically viable to save it.
Funny how the “debt” gets brought up very selectively.
If we can spend $1 trillion a year on the military, we can spend that on saving the planet.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting Mikie
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. His behavior wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?
Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that the industry funded — which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.
But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc…
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
:ok:
Takes real effort to avoid so much contrary evidence.
Not as much as some want us to believe was my point. The 7 trillion from the IMF certainly wasn't a very fair estimate, and that's the study that blindly get parrotted everywhere.
Quoting Mikie
If you only look at carbon emissions sure... but if you look at land use, which is the main cause of bio-diversity loss, it isn't great, certainly not if we would be serious about scaling up renewables to replace all fossil fuels. Mining for all the resources to build them is devastating too. And then we haven't factored in all the waste we will have to deal with once we need to replace them in 20 years.
Quoting Mikie
I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment.
Quoting Mikie
No, I would choose saving the biosphere over the economy in a heartbeat. But it's not up to me, it doesn't matter what I want if there isn't enough political support for it. I just can't see it happening, because I don't think we wouldn't have much of an economy left if we were to include all externalities. I'm talking mostly discriptive here, or I try to at least.
Quoting Mikie
I did google him, and sure he seem like a greedy bastard alright. I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things. How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission? Europe did a little bit better maybe, but nowhere near enough to seriously stop climate change. Climate change denial hasn't really been a thing in Europe, and yet here we are 30 years further with little to show for. At some point one has to look a little deeper than evil greedy dude destroying the world for profit I would think.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding.
But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.
It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.
I don’t share that sentiment.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.
China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.
The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I couldn’t see heat pumps outselling gas furnaces in my lifetime…but it happened last year.
Maybe none of it happens. That’s a possibility. But we work hard anyway. What we don’t do is sit down and help guarantee nothing happens.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Then you’re really not paying attention.
If you want to believe it’s all accidental or inevitable somehow, that’s fine— seems better than believing in conspiracy theories. Until you recognize that they’re not really conspiracy theories, of course.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.
And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.
There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.
I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious.
The point is that it is not as black and white as a lot of you seem to be making it out to be. Or it only gets looked at on this binary carbon emissions axis.... If you take different aspects into consideration, like yes the economy, or other types of ecological damages, than it's a lot more nuanced.
I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Resources, money, time etc etc are limited. If we want to figure out how to best deal with the problems we have, we'd better find out what all the different costs are of the available options.
Quoting Mikie
The reason all of them carbonized was industrialisation.
Quoting Mikie
We can do a bit better that hope for the improbable I would think.
Quoting Mikie
Ok, I agree with this.
That’s been done.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Industrialization and modern capitalism goes hand and hand.
You really believe that there no more debate to be had about how we are going to solve this? That seems rather close-minded. I feel like we only have scratched the surface of how we are going to balance different issues.... In any case, I don't think there is one kind of solution, it will also greatly depend on the situation of your country.
Quoting Mikie
Communism relies on industrialization too, unless you are going for the Pol Pot variety.
Plenty. I’ve seen none from you whatsoever other than “I doubt it can be done.”
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
The Industrial Revolution started in Britain. The so called communist countries industrialized later.
[Slight quibble]. It started really with the beginning of the British Empire. Slave produced cotton, and sugar both subsidised and incentivised mass production, transport etc. Slate from Welsh quarries roofed the houses of plantation owners, and the Bethesda quarry owner, for example, was also a plantation owner. And the quarry was an early adopter of a railway to transport slate to the coast for shipment. A similar pattern can be found with the cotton mills of Lancashire, etc.
In particular, there was a great hunger in Africa for iron, which was hard won by the technology available to them, but which Britain had developed with the exploitation of coal. Slaves were bought, first for iron, and later for guns. The triangular trade - iron from Britain to West Africa, Slaves to the Americas and the West Indies, sugar, cotton and rum back to Britain is what made a small country one of the wealthiest, and most powerful, and drove the industrial revolution.
(Racism is as essential to capitalism as sexism is to patriarchy.)
[/slight quibble].
I doubt it can be done without certain consequences...
You haven't seen them because we haven't talked about that specifically.
Most of these 81 pages have been about rebuking climate change denial, which is a clear cut matter. That doesn't mean there isn't a real discussion to be had about how we are going to solve it.
And yes, I'm still in the process of making up my mind, I don't see how one can be so certain about something with this many moving parts.
Well let’s have that discussion then.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fair enough. Point taken.
There's another option, though. If by "we" you mean the human race, it's most likely going to be fine. Climate volatility may take out the present world order. I think that's likely. But world orders come and go. We'll be back a few thousand years from now, and probably more capable than ever.
If by "we" you mean the present generation, again, we'll probably be fine. Our knowledge puts us in a position to know that we're saying goodbye to a world, while it's still here. This vibe, which dwells on the fragility of life, is like this:
I don't mean to nitpick, but unsustainability is to capitalism, as sexism is to patriarchy, as racism is to white imperialism...woe to the oppressed.
Worth noting.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not surprised that you do. It's like you hate my guts or something.
What do you mean? Capitalism can't help but be unsustainable?
Thanks for the feedback. :up:
I was just correcting the correlation:Quoting unenlightened
And I don't believe capitalism is ultimately unsustainable. It is the only system we know of that is capable of producing novelty and innovating technologies that might be able to counteract the climate crisis. We can see how communism in ussr failed by stagnating in all production and innovation, and ccp was forced to betray its marxist principles by adopting Dengism in order to compete on the global stage. The only way Communism could only succeed in creating a sustainable world be by regressing civilization back into the stone age.
Bronze age economies were kind of like communism. But yes, it's a world where nothing ever changes. There is no innovation.
Even Dengism merely produces knockoffs of western innovations, but at least it is producing.
Got put in your place, huh? You are so lucky getting such constructive feedback. I'm jealous.
Well I'm single handedly changing the climate so it's similar to what they have on Venus, so taking a little flak is the least I can do.
I'm sure you wouldn't catch so much heat if you would only speak as a malcontented little prick like the rest of the doomed apparatchiks.
:lol:
:rofl:
Quoting Mikie
Thank you very much, you have been a wonderful audience.
Yay!
You're welcome. Your parroting such stupid, simplistic ideas always gives me a chuckle.
I didn't realize you started this thread. :up: How long has it been since your original questions have been directly addressed? 2 years? Allow me.
1&2: I am optimistic, so... no. Human ingenuity has a solid historic record of creating solutions to its problems. There is no historical data on the degeneration of past civilizations, so we have zero reference on whether or not we have reached the tipping point. In fact, when we look at a more recent potentially world ending phenomena, nuclear warfare, humanity's solution has worked quite successfully so far. Because cooperation amongst competing powers in that case would seem much less likely than eventual cooperation in the case of environmental protection, there is even more reason to be optimistic.
3: it is all about cooperation that averages out into a better way of life for all. It starts with an open discourse about solutions that do not encroach on people's ways of life (except, perhaps, for the mega wealthy). The more that sustainability goals are perceived to diminish the quality of life for the average working man, the more incentive for resistance to sustainability goals.
6: yes. I guarantee you that Christians and Muslims alike are more concerned with eschatologicsl considerations of the human soul. And me. I still hold nuclear warfare to be a bigger issue. I also consider Covid a bigger issue, not the disease, but humanity's pathetic and cowardly response to it (such a species deserves to be wiped out by a climate apocalypse).
I am happy to oblige. Perhaps you will oblige me. Who are the key pioneers on the notion of sustainability?
Yay to you, you instigator :wink: :chin:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Who is it?
:lol:
That's what I'm asking @Mikie!
Your addressing the actual questions were more reasonable than I'd expect, and this part especially. I happen to agree.
Why then do you always seem to present yourself as an extreme right wing nut job? Is it just performance?
I know one guy. When Mikie has completed his answer.
I assume you'll say Paul Hawken or something like that, and then point out that he's a capitalist, etc. etc.
I'd point to people like Bill McKibben, Rachel Carson, etc. But you're asking for a reason, so let's not pretend you're interested in any answers. Just make your point.
There are a few answers.
In a strong sense, it is performance, but that is not all due to my antics, there is an inherent art to philosophy that requires a certain quality of performance.
I have a rebellious philosophical nature, and I am compelled to reject whatever I perceive as status quo (for good or bad), and, as of late (as i perceive), many leftist policies have taken on the lame stench of the status quo.
Lastly, perhaps you have drifted so far to the left that you have been radicalized to the point that almost everything appears right-leaning to you. Perhaps not, i don't know you personally. No insult intended here.
Quoting Mikie
Nice! It's kind of an honor to share common ground with the likes of you :wink: :grin:
Also, it is strategically wise to set up expectations...philosophical manipulation 101 :chin:
Actually, the answers are exactly what I wanted. I actually haven't heard of any of the people you mentioned (researching them now).
But I was hoping amongst that listing you had mentioned the great Herbert Marcuse.
From the little I've gathered, Marcuse was a major influence on Paul Hawken. And regarding Marcuse, I heavily oppose many of the tenets that factor into his ideas on sustainability. However, I could envision a post-Marcusian version of sustainability that would lend to less radically divisive and tyrannical solutions.
Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point.
Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. And my only point was to find out who you factored as key pioneers on the notion of sustainability.
But since you insist on some deeper point, I will oblige. It would seem to me, that if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability", yet that same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, it would be extremely reasonable to assume that same person has been brainwashed by popular media. Such a person might even seek out and consume studies and statistics that are strategically dispersed by the perpetrators of the official narrative in order to reinforce the narrative in his closed mind. And that would mean that the programming has taken hold.
The question I am left asking is: why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy.
I looked him up. He was before the time of Marcuse. Marcuse had accute ideas on sustainability. Vanderbilt seems to be more about classic environmental protection.
The main difference, beyond their respective occupations, is that Vanderbilt was on a personal quest and was not trying to impose his ethic on all society. Whereas markuse was prescribing his "new sensibilities" as a society wide solution to what he imagined (and greatly exagerated) to be an environmental crisis.
You fail. But A+ for effort :joke:
Central theory of sustainability? What are you referring to? I’ve read Marcuse— I guess I missed this. But in any case, seems far fetched.
Who cares? Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
What core ideas are you referring to exactly?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Such as?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Not popular media — science.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
First, it’s arguable that Marcuse played as big a role in the environmental movement or the idea of sustainability that you seem to be latching yourself to.
Second, if he has indeed played a large role — who cares? What does it have to do with the facts of climate science?
There are plenty of solutions. We’ve barely scratched the surface of that discussion on this thread.
With that i can absolutely agree. Let's try. I'm willing to get crazy with it.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting Mikie
Not as far fetched as you think. Here are some quotes:
I challenge you to explain to @Agree-to-Disagree and @ChatteringMonkey and @frank, how these quotes don't fit in perfectly ( and rather ironically) with the official climate crisis narrative. I'm certain that you are philosophical enough to provide one example.
Quoting Mikie
Did you hear about the science, or do it yourself? Please tell me you did it yourself :pray:
Quoting Mikie
Maybe I'm totally wrong, but fortunately, and unlike @frank, I truly possess the payload to singlehand destroy, not only the environment, but the entire universe.
It means that there is a great possibility that the official narrative concerning the climate crisis is totally overblown, as with Marcuse. And it also means that it is likely that there is an agenda with inflated statistics, which very few people benefit from, that pushes the official narrative on the rabble and unsuspecting suckers.
What “official climate crisis narrative”? The rising of global temperature is due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation and agricultural practices. That exacerbates flooding, draughts, wildfires, stronger hurricanes, icecap melting, sea level rise, etc. — and could lead to tipping points.
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
That being said— Marcuse is right. But he wasn’t a climate scientist and wasn’t presenting evidence of global warming or offering concrete solutions. I personally agree we should be less consumeristic and move away from capitalism — particularly neoliberalism— but so what? There’s reasonable arguments, from Jeremy Grantham for example, about using the better parts of “capitalism” (eg venture capital) to encourage transition.
I’m still not really seeing the point. Why is Marcuse “central” to anything in the environmental movement — especially climate change? Rachel Carson, Bill Mckibben, James Hanson, Syukuro Manabe— all far more relevant in this respect.
Unless one is trying to link climate science to “Marxism” somehow. Which is silly.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Done what myself? Read a graph?
Yes, I talk to climate scientists and read published articles on climate change. I have some background in it— but I’m not involved in gathering ice core samples if that’s what you mean.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
What “official narrative,” exactly? You keep mentioning this.
Marcuse didn’t write about climate change. Nor was anything you quoted from him “overblown.” Seems like common sense. But ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
But I see where this is going.
True, it could all be a communist conspiracy. That’s a fairly common variant of climate denial. It’s on par with creationists being correct about Noah’s flood, but it’s possible. If you want to throw in with that idea, your welcome.
I know a cultic priest who would be atwitter for access to your science.
That's the narrative im fishing for
Correct. He was a genius, presenting a massive narrative that would place him in the ranking of world historical figures.
Sounds reasonable at face value. Let's put that in the bin of relevance
Common sense is easy to instill into the "truly uncritical" mind.
Typical submittal tactic.
Done!
What?
It’s not “my” science. The evidence is there for all to see. Gotta try hard not to understand it, in fact.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
It’s not a narrative. It’s scientific fact. Supported by overwhelming evidence.
I suppose evolution, electromagnetism, and gravity can be described as “narratives” too, eh?
Cool. Go do more “critical thinking” with Alex Jones and Ken Hamm.
And I don’t need 10 replies to one post. This isn’t Twitter.
Do you realize that the science just happened, coincidentally to confirm an egregious amount of Marcuse's speculations. If he naturslly intuited this incontrovertible fact from pure anecdotal study and observation, it would make him greater than Jesus and Mao having generous butt sex
You are truly bought and sold
Quoting Mikie
:party: its a shutout, you have not made one point (not even the one i was certsin of). And now you retreat even farther back with the old:
Quoting Mikie
What discussion, the one on climate change? Well moderated! You are not gaining any support with your expert argument.
Please, provide us all the electromagnetic explanation of climate change, and we will believe everything you say.
Im thinking more "critical theory"
What is your core criticism countering my claim that Marcuse's philosophy underlies the official climate crisis narrative?
The end-of-the-world narrative is an Indo-European motif. The climate crisis is Armageddon. Capitalism is the Antichrist. I'm talking about the emotional form of it, not the scientific part.
The US and Russia have this oddity in common: particularly potent forms of the Armageddon myth were social drivers in each culture. The idea of global nuclear war emerged from a conflict between entities who were both already steeped in dreams of the end of the world.
That doesn't mean the end isn't really near. In fact the world is ending all the time. And that's what it's really about: time.
Any good textbook on global warming will have a section on the philosophical challenge of climate change: that this problem will always be with us as long as coal is around to burn. As a species, we have no experience addressing a problem that extends beyond about a hundred years. This problem extends for thousands upon thousands. The real problem is time.
So I kind of miss what exactly is the relevance of pointing out that it's a narrative to assume the science in favour of the global warming hypothese is right or a "fact"? Technically those claims go to far but for the purposes of discussion I've found alternative narratives easy to disprove. The bigger problem is the moral apathy and cynicism of some posters - which I feel regulary but choose to ignore because I owe that to future generations. Even if we can't stop it, mitigating it will go a long way.
Other than that, good quotes from Marcuse!
Quoting frank
The real problem is people like you insisting the problem is too big, too difficult, too whatever reason you can dream up to do fuck all. It's just moral weakness.
You make a choice to stick your head in the ground?
It obviously does matter what the likelyhood of succeeding is. Suppose we have a very small chance of succeeding to stay below a certain limit of climate change, than I think it would make sense to allocate a lot more money to resilience measures.
I feel like you are overselling all these psychological effects. That is probably our main point of disagreement. I think it's better to look at our situation as it is, and figure out what to do from there. A failure to aknowledge that is far more dangerous than anything like a self-fulfilling profecy it seems to me.
The real problem is that we have a real problem.
How you got this from what I said is bizarre.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
No kidding. That’s what I have and will continue to do. What I won’t do is resign myself to doing nothing because it’s a big, difficult problem.
How you got this from what I said is bizarre.
I guess we are both kind of arguing a bit of a strawman version of eachothers position then?
Actually, I brought up fusion, a global government, a new global religion, and other ideas. What did you contribute other than being a gnat in my face?
The technology is already there, the awareness is there but hey, let's just keep doing what we're doing. What I contribute is less than the global average and I set aside about 3% of my income each year to finance further reductions. Isolate your home maybe get some solar panels, ompartimentalise your heating system so you only warm rooms you're using, use a bike to get around, consume less, buy second hand, torch all advertisement. You'll save money, get healthier and be happier. It's not new or ground-breaking. In fact, it's all very easy unless you're poor. That's really the only excuse to do nothing.
I've long believed fission and fusion will be a significant part of addressing climate change. The challenge today is that coal is cheapest way to beef up a power grid, which is why China is building two coal driven power plants per week this year.
You can force nuclear power with laws, as is happening in the US. A fission plant is being built near me, actually. But laws come and go. Supply and demand will have a bigger impact over time. Fusion would reduce the demand for coal, natural gas, and petroleum without the environmental impact fission has.
Quoting Benkei
That's great. I also live a low consumption life. One of the systemic problems people overlook is the way we use plastic. Organisms that eat plastic have evolved. That means going forward, that plastic waste will contribute to greenhouse gases. So what's the alternative? I mainly think about that with regard to medical equipment which is pervasively made of disposable plastic for infection control reasons. We could transition back to glass, but guess what power source drives most glass production? Natural gas.
So solar panels are a great idea. They're subsidized by my state. But you can't make glass with a solar panel. Globally, we should be working to transition to fission and fusion. That would actually do something about the problem.
Internal documents show what the oil giant said publicly was very different from how it approached the issue privately in the Tillerson era
Suspend judgment, let it play out and observe. In the midst of chaos, it is prudent to remain calm, panic will only serve to exacerbate the chaos.
One explanation for the abundance of scientists who support the official narrative is because there is not much of a career left for them if they go rogue. Now that the official narrative has become scientific dogma, the entire institution works toward advancing it, and there is even less incentive for scientist to investigate anything that might contradict the official narrative.
Another thing that doesn't sit well with me is that those pushing the official climate crisis narrative would also agree that science (the very same science that they use to support the official narrative) is an oppressive institution that has grown directly out of the patriarchy and white imperialism. In that context, how can I possibly be expected to put my faith in such a tyrannical and fascist charade? Or does it just happen to be the greatest coincidence ever, and climate change science just happens to be the only field in that entire institution that is not racist and sexist?
You figure out which interest groups are pushing which narratives, and decide which one you [s]trust more[/s] mistrust the least.
That is a solid analysis.
Quoting frank
That makes sense. The human lifespan is less than 100 years. And within that time everyone has plenty of problems to deal with on a daily basis, which makes it hard to justify the investment of limited time and energy on a problem that is predicted (rightly or wrongly) to arise after you are dead.
Alternatively, there's sufficient/overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change. After all, scientists point at available evidence, not at "narratives" or "whatever people's opinions".
Notice how the quote, or something similar, could be raised on any topic with a general consensus, to pseudo-level an unlevel world. Casting it as a truth-independent or conspiracy'esque game instead, has become trendy I guess.
also mentioned biodiversity impairment, which is related — humans all over the place, population growth, deforestation, pollution, nature/wildlife displacement, extinctions, renewability, ...
Exactly. Imagine that we manage to end fossil fuel use. In a thousand years humans have forgotten that we did that and they go back to using coal and petroleum. Transmitting an imperative to people a thousand years in the future is just beyond anything we've ever done.
If you take a class in global warming at a university, they go over this. It's part of comprehending the true dimensions of the problem.
Is that possible in the slightest. Parents can barely impart their ethics to their children. Maybe if time travel were invented. But that would mean it has already been invented.
The topic is not as cut and dried as the official narrative portrays it.
No no no, reading a thermometer is a narrative.
This analysis holds up. Life has evolved over billions of years. Evolution isn’t a fact— it’s an official narrative. Scientists are forced into conforming.
This way we don’t have to learn anything or understand the subject. Just use this analysis and feel special/sound super smart.
The human race could split it two. One branch lives underground and stays technologically and intellectually sophisticated. The other branch lives on the surface and has reverted to stone age life. The people who live underground have a static social order and they routinely blitz the surface dwellers so they can never advance and start doing crazy stuff like burning coal. This goes on for thousands of years until Yellowstone blows up and initiates the Age of Insects where ant supercolonies develop intellectual sophistication and pizza that isn't fattening.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
How do you know?
Scientists are not infallible, they are human like everyone else. And the human urge to go along with the popular trend is quite strong, especially when doing so would help in furthering one's career. Hence, to think that scientists at large would orient their scientific labor in support of an official narrative is not at all unreasonable to consider.
Quoting jorndoe
Speaking of trends, have you ever noticed how climate change is very often conveyed in outrageous alarmist language by those who have bought into the official narrative.
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting Mikie
Very Marcusian languange, by the way.
I suppose, when you dig deep enough, it is all a "conspiracy'esque game". In my case, my conspiracy theory is called skepticism, and its central axiom is: if it looks like bullshit, talks like bullshit, walks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it is most likely bullshit.
:rofl: im sold
Quoting frank
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
The most believable bullshit always has a kernel of truth. It is propaganda 101. And anytime i see alarmist bullshit being utilized to centralize power and impose greater control over the multitudes, i get real suspicious.
Evolutionist aren't attempting to radically transform all society based on some trumped up, overblown crisis.
Insect supercolonies don't have this problem. It's why they end up taking over the world.
They give rise to the bird race!
the what?
The bird race that feeds on the insects.?.? :chin:
The birds died out when Yellowstone blew up. The insects keep bird fossils in their museums.
Exactly— forget the evidence, and forget understanding the science. Just apply said analysis and presto— sit back and feel good about yourself.
I myself like to go to universities and talk about how physicists are buying into the official narrative of gravity.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Creationists would disagree. Go talk to one— you’ll fit right in.
Not ureasonable I suppose, for someone with a lack of experience with science and scientists. However, regardless of how reasonably understood it might be, that you hold that view (being as ignorant as you demonstrate yourself to be) ignorant conspiracy theory rationalization is what it is.
And that's another point of suspicion. How desperate and juvenile climate crisis activists become in the face of opposition to their dogmatism. There is a definite religious zealotry to it all. Makes me all the more justified in rejecting it.
I wish my world was as black and white as yours.
Quoting jorndoe
Cool, here's an even more generic argument:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Science begone, the lot. Nothing to see here. Sort of p0m0'ish, too.
By the way, I already differentiated the people and the evidence they point at:
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
There are also round-Earth skeptics, E=mc² skeptics, germ skeptics, Moon landing skeptics, biological evolution skeptics, you name it. (skepticism ? denial ? skepticism ? post-truth)
Isn't that a genetic fallacy? No, not quite. Maybe ad odium? Or an association fallacy.
Let climate deniers be climate deniers. The religion belongs to them. The analysis is easy, and requires nothing but conspiracies and cheap skepticism. This way they don’t have to bother listening to people who spend their lives to the subject — or really learn anything at all. Because that requires effort. Creationists are on the same level— same arguments, in fact.
It’s also hilarious watching them devolve into blithering imbeciles when their feeble accusations are put to the most mild scrutiny.
I think the best thing to do from this point on is ignore them…or respond with satire (which they won’t notice). You do you, of course.
:up:
There's a scene in the movie 200 that comes to mind with regard to climate change narratives. It's about Xerxes, who is about 20 feet tall for some reason. Did you see it?
“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.” --Mark Twain
:lol: :up:
I like this one. Apropos of the recent level of participants in this thread:
“Some people say global warming is real — and then the really smart people, they know it’s a ruse invented by the Illuminati.”
It is argumentum ad lapidem
Who exactly is 'denying climate'?
Climate is a word that plays a part in language games, but it would be a mistake to think it has a foundation beyond that. That's just rank foundationalism.
:lol:
Climate is a logocentric tool of oppression created by the white colonialist patriarchy!
Or it's Marxist. Depends on which direction the polar vortex is blowing.
That damn shifty polar vortex
Ain't that the truth?
I'm astounded at how these climate crisis radicals refuse to acknowledge how essentially racist and sexist they actually are.
Are they?
I don't think the point of critical race theory is that the entire universe is racist. It's just that our society didn't pop out of an egg yesterday. We have a legacy of racism. There are ways that racism was incorporated into the world in the past. Those worldly things still exist, like the projects put black people into a sink hole and forces of rehabilitation wax and wane.
Besides, the new Republicans are batshit. They'll gladly load racism into their basket along with refusing to accept that there is any such thing as a climate.
Yes.
Quoting frank
And science is a part of that legacy.
Quoting frank
Are racism and climate crisis completely interdependent? Does acceptance of one necessitate acceptance of the other? If that is the case, how do we reconcile the fact that science is part of a legacy of racism that is assumed to simultaneously be cabable of solving the problems of the modern world (such as racism and climate change)?
Uh huh.
I suppose you are big into phrenology
Sort of. I'm making a series of puppets that have human bodies and animal heads.
Awesome! put me down for a full pantheon
:grin: They all go to a gift shop down the road.
The term "climate justice" is used a lot by people who are worried about the climate crisis. Can anybody please explain to me what "climate justice" is?
I suppose it is a slave morality - the weak are using climate as a pretense to express their will to power.
Here are a couple quotes from the godfather of "sustainability":
https://environmentalhistory.org/about/
I never liked Marcuse, I came across him in the early seventies, but he always seemed to me an exploiter of environmental concerns for political purposes. and his writing style was awful. But as one reads the timeline, it is clear that the poor and working class are the ones who suffer most from pollution and poor environment, because the rich have the ability to live well away from the sources of their income. This is perhaps why one might get the impression that it is a left wing conspiracy.
But if anyone wonders what environmentalism ever did for us, this timeline has some answers.
I think it means the costs of climate change shouldn't be shuffled off onto the poor.
Are there any benefits from global-warming/climate-change? If there are, then what are they?
I don't think anyone is expecting more plusses than minuses.
There are probably people in some locations who will get more plusses than minuses. Can we expect these people to help to solve global-warming/climate-change?
Anyone who benefits better have a nuclear arsenal ready to defend themselves from invasion. :grin:
This is not as likely as you might imagine. The obvious places are the very cold regions like the North of Russia and Canada. But the problem is that what currently lives there is adapted to the cold and will not thrive in the warmth, not just the mammals like polar bear and reindeer etc, but humble lichens. The first thing that will happen is more extremes and instability, that will degrade the environment, melting permafrost, more rain less snow leads to faster runoff and soil erosion. There are at the same time already more wildfires in these areas.
The problem for any environment is the speed of change. A 2 degree C. increase in temperature is equivalent to perhaps 1000 km move towards the pole, and most plants cannot move that far in a few decades. (These numbers are not to be taken too literally, because life is complicated, and much is still unknown.) The disastrous costs will have a long run though, before any benefits can begin to accrue.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118069
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land, glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?
Humans can move the plants that they want to move. This solves the problem for plants that can't move themselves. All of our food crops etc will be easy to shift.
Things are not that simple.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield
:nerd:
Russia and Greenland will open up as well. North Dakota will be nice.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I think the main threat to global stability will be climate volatility. A few punches in the face we can handle. But if they just keep coming we'll eventually fall.
The climate is already very variable when you look at summer and winter. Animals and plants have evolved to cope with this variability.
Just ignore those who have no interest in learning anything. Pat them on the head and reassure them everything will be fine. It’s beneficial…It’s just a narrative…it’ll be okay in 2000 years; whatever it is. Go with it.
Back in the real world:
NASA Announces Summer 2023 Hottest on Record
In other areas, like art and history and politics— and even philosophy— one can get away with a lot of off-the-cuff, armchair opining. It’s sometimes hard to tell who’s a moron.
That’s why I like to read the “hot takes” on climate. People get used to having an opinion on everything— and getting away with knowing nothing. Like winging it on a test and still getting a passing grade. But with climate change, or evolutionary biology, or civil engineering, or geology, or astrophysics — it’s so incredibly easy to sort out its like a sieve. Very useful.
Anyway— I point it out because it amounts to less time wasted on imbeciles when they go to post on other threads. In this case I recommend everyone read the climate change thread occasionally, to remove all doubt about one’s interlocutors.
No, it's stuff like bigger droughts and destructive storms. And remember we talked about the potential shutdown of the AMOC. That would essentially destroy western Europe.
When you have a nice thick heavy ice sheet grinding over the land for a few thousand years, it doesn't do much to improve the topsoil. Greenland will open up indeed, apart from the coastal regions where people live, which will be under water, but the open land will be scoured to bare rock. Perfect for the Flintstones and Asterix and Obelisk. but in a few short decades, pioneer plants will start to build up the soil - dandelions, heathers and the like. In a century or two it will indeed be "nice". Shame about Africa, India Indonesia , etc. though.
All true
Alien lizards. Yes. Now at least you’re making sense.
Quoting unenlightened
Lol. It’s gonna be great. CO2 is good for plants anyway so…no worries.
"Could"? "Possibly"? Just another example of that alarmist reporting feeding into the official narrative. Let's all freak out and fall in lock step with the doomsayers. "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!"
Doomsaying is probably on par with flattery as the most pathetically overused gimick in human history.
Like being a radical climate change activist without knowing that the notion of "sustainability" originated with Marcuse?
Yea but Cassandra was right.
It didn’t originate with Marcuse. You made that up. Which proves my point about denialist imbeciles.
I think her older brother is theboy who cried wolf
Who else was talking like this prior to 1964?
Marcuse's ideas about the environment were embedded within his broader critique of capitalist societies. While he did not focus exclusively on environmental issues, his work contributed to discussions about the relationship between society and the environment.
.
He viewed the capitalist tendency to turn everything, including nature, into commodities for profit as contributing to environmental problems, and was critical of a consumerist culture that contributed to the generation of pollution and the excessive consumption of resources.
And, athough he was not an environmentalist in the conventional sense, Marcuse believed that achieving greater social justice would require a fundamental transformation of the existing social and economic order, and that such a transformation would have positive implications for rectifying environmental destruction.
Alarmism contributes nothing to scientific "bona fides". It is dead weight. Or is that a critical part of the scientific process that I have been missing?
In my view, denial/contrarianism is sometimes justified when alarmism becomes the main defense for an argument that cannot convince on its own merit.
Activism (and possibly alarmism) can be a bona fides reaction, with scientific justification, and moral guts.
[sup](As an aside, you may entertain whatever view you like; around here you'll have to justify them unless you just want to talk about yourself.)[/sup]
Sure, alarmist reaction to scientific data can be genuine. But, it is not necessary to the truth of the science itself. The science should be able to explain things in its own terms, and does not need an alarmist interpretation or an appeal to emotion in order to reify it.
Ok :wink:
His cousin was little Red Ridinghood.
3 years after Hurricane Sally, Pensacola is still struggling to rebuild
[sup]— Julia Jacobo, David Miller · ABC · Sep 18, 2023[/sup]
More frequent hurricanes wreaking havoc is one thing, increasing flooding + water levels another.
I guess it depends on tides, the Moon, ocean currents, what-have-you — with more liquid water in circulation, some areas will see more flooding.
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.[/quote]
I was in Pensacola prior to 2020. It was a total shithole. Most of the buildings buildings were run down, and the roads and bridges looked like they hadn't been maintained for decades. I didn't take a close look, but one could assume the stormwater drains were also in a long state of disrepair. It makes complete sense that Pensacola would be having such problems with its third world infrastructure.
This is why Republicans are the most dangerous party in history.
Let’s not only do nothing about climate change — let’s cancel any effort to do so, make the problem even worse, and remove all reference to it.
Sick, insane people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/20/us/politics/desantis-climate-energy-biden.html
The lunatics have decided to remove the foundations and fly the asylum to the land of freedom. I don't think they'll get very far, but I wish i wouldn't be buried in the rubble.
When politicians try to repeal the laws of physics, people die, but the laws stand firm.
That's over the top.
Communists throughout the past century have an outstanding track record of perpetrating obscene amounts of state sponsored murder against their own citizens, with astounding consistency and efficiency. The republican leadership is manned by too many moldy turds to ever see it murder its own citizens as effectively as Communists have done.
No, it isn’t.
How so?
Chomsky says it best:
Not hard to see. Unless of course you deny what scientists are telling us because they’re bought off… or part of an elaborate conspiracy…or pushing an “official narrative” (like reading thermometers).
But aside from that kind of idiocy, it’s easy to acknowledge.
On the other hand, Communism has been the vehicle from.which the worst tyrants in history have wreaked their unwanton death and destruction. The only other forces that come close to the evil of communism are Nazism, and Japanese Militarism. However, these fall short due to their obvious limited appeal (in contrast to communism which lends itself to universal appeal). Republicans are a far cry from being anything like these, and actually have much greater similarity with democrats.
Apparently it’s not clear to you that I’m talking about the today’s world— not the 1870s.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Nazism was still localized. Climate change isn’t. Republicans want to accelerate it.
Again— those who can’t ackowledge the truth of this rather obvious point are those who don’t believe climate change is much of a problem to begin with.
World history is always relevant to today's world, in one way or another. And 1870 isn't far off, the 13-15th amendments are active at this very time. communism also has its own historical relevance in today's world.
Quoting Mikie
Are republicans the only ones accelerating it? You don't have to be republican to disagree. Im not a republican. It is not an obvious truth, and there are many reasons it could be denied that it is the end of the world,
which is why it needs to be presented with care if it is, in fact, the end of the world.
The fact that It is always presented with such alarmist compulsion, gives rise to very reasonable doubt in my mind. There is no need for compulsory action nor alarmist affectation, any reasonable scientific argument will prevail in due time. This is the great x-factor.
For you, the argument is undeniable, you assent to the evidence because it appears convincing, and consent to the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because you consider them reliable for good reason... no harm there. I do the same, only in reverse: I object to the evidence because it appears unconvincing, and dissent from the authority of those who collect and disseminate the evidence because I consider them unreliable for good reason... no harm meant. Unfortunately, all my judgment is suspended until sufficient doubts are rectified, nevertheless, both our positions are both quite understandable.
For me, the data is convincing in itself. It is the media communicating the meaning of the data to us, and the particular compulsory message they are delivering that I have issue with. I have a hard time trusting anything that gets filtered through any of the major media news outlets in such fashion. I know their game too well, it has been the same for decades. Distrust, that's what happens with liars. Let's hope this is more of the same: lying. If not, woe is us.
Quoting Mikie
I suppose that would include the historically accumulated data that is used to predict the future trajectory of climate change. It's all a red herring.
It is often claimed that the "science" produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Oil" is biased and not valid.
So what sort of "science" is produced by scientists who are funded by "Big Climate"?
Who are they? Multi-National windmill manufacturers?
The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 to help countries address climate change.
The New York Times says that the US “took a major step toward fighting climate change” on Friday when the House of Representatives approved a $2.2 TRILLION spending bill that “includes the largest expenditures ever made by the federal government to slow global warming”.
It’s not relevant here— at all. Red herring.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Of the two major political parties, they want to accelerate it. Which is why they’re the most dangerous organization in history. Unless of course there’s some organization I missed that explicitly states they want to push for more usage of nuclear weapons.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I never once made that statement. Strawman.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
It already has. That time is long over. We’re in the process of implementing measures to adapt to it and hopefully slow it/stop it. Sorry that you’re still stuck in the past — but that’s not my business.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You haven’t once mentioned the evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming. For one “not to be convinced” requires real effort.
Don’t try to frame this as if your conclusion isn’t foregone. No one is buying that. And no one buys that you have a clue about the evidence— which is undeniable if one actually takes a look.
What you’ve done is chosen to listen to political commentators and the manufactured doubt of the industry (which is well documented). I’ve encountered plenty like this. Dime a dozen.
:rofl:
Most of which goes towards adaptation and resiliency. How nefarious!
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Except this was from two years ago. And, incidentally, DIDN’T PASS. Would have been great if it did— it would have invested nearly $600 million in climate solutions, over 10 years, which is far less than is needed but still something.
But— again — it didn’t pass. So once again you’re just making engaging in your topical buffoonery.
No, that’s not a red herring, that’s completely relevant and important when talking about climate change and climate projections.
When talking about the statement “The Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in history,” citing things the party did in the 1870s are irrelevant and a red herring. Because we’re not talking about the Republican Party from the 1870s. We’re talking about the current party.
If you can’t keep up with the conversation, better to just stifle yourself.
Here is an interesting article to read :grin:
Follow the (Climate Change) Money
(Mikie - comment on what is said, not on who said it)
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
Here are a few quotes:
I’m glad you’ve now given up on any pretext of caring about climate science and have now gone full climate denial. Awesome.
Quoting the heritage foundation and an imbecile and proven fraud like Stephen Moore for “evidence” of a global conspiracy. A new low.
:rofl:
So just typical selective skepticism, trying to imply that it’s the thousands of scientists around the world who are biased, not the shills for fossil fuels like Stephen Moore and Heritage.
The funding to adapt to climate change has nothing to do with physics and climate science. And the IPCC doesn’t talk about “apocalypse.” That’s just a stupid strawman.
Ohhh I see— so this mysterious evidence that the crisis isn’t happening is suppressed globally. But Stephen Moore must know what that evidence is…he’s an expert in all this, of course…and definitely someone we should be listening to on this matter.
Good god you’re pathetic.
Fine — it’s not happening. Or it’s not a crisis…or can’t be solved…or whatever the latest claim is. Whatever makes you happy. Just please stop embarrassing yourself any further. Go read more of what conservative, fossil fuel funded think tanks tell you. This way you can feel special in your “skepticism.” Be well.
But look at the data, its science!
There are many reasons to deny. And many more.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
He doesn't like science and evidence which cannot back up his fanaticism. The only thing he does against counter-arguments or people who disagree with him is insulting:
, etc.
Oh? Like what?
Because so far you’ve shown excellent judgment.
Why don’t you three geniuses start a thread about how climate change is a Chinese hoax or whatever. :up:
Is this graph too hard to understand? Is it a narrative? Is it the result of scientific groupthink? Is it all based on made-up data? Is it really nothing to worry about?
It’s no coincidence that right wing/ conservative/libertarian/Christian evangelical ideology is usually at the heart of climate denial. Naomi Oreskes has documented this very well.
Thus the well-qualified “skeptics” here making fools of themselves are the very same people who defend Donald Trump, who constantly harp against communism and socialism, are always whining about big government, and/or are devout Christians.
Have they simply been groomed by Koch propaganda? Sure. But it goes beyond climate denial.
:rofl:
From the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
Mikie, thank you for showing that this statement is true. :100:
It's not interesting. It doesn't follow the money. The only fact is that the government is spending money on climate research (and presumably on mitigation measures, but the distinction is not made). But there is no explanation of any financial incentive for anyone to persuade the government to act in this way. government is creating research, and government is creating a green industry , and these new industries are creating the crisis? It doesn't make 'follow the money' sense because no one has a money motive for doing it. Why invest in green energy rather than oil? Not a hint of a tint of an answer. No financial motive even suggested for any conspiracy.
Established financial interests can and do conspire to distort science and influence governments Oil industry, tobacco industry, pharmaceuticals, agro chemicals. Where is the financial interest in your conspiracy? There is none, because there is none you have mentioned, and there is none in the feeble article you cited. Because all the industries that might have such interests have been created by the supposed conspiracy they are supposed to have conspired to create.
It's nonsense on stilts, and straight out of the kindergarten playground of unimaginative reflecting of complaints with zero attention to good sense. It has become the tactic of first resort these days.
"The oil industry is cheating."
" No, the green industry is cheating."
The first claim is supported by motive, leaked documentary evidence, campaign funds records etc etc. The second has nothing. not even a suspect to accuse.
Again, from the same article I linked to before:
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money
If nearly a trillion dollars has been spent, and almost no progress has been made, who has been getting lots of money for producing next to nothing. We definitely need to follow the climate change money.
So follow it. Try not to keep going in a circle though.
"Follow the money". Fantastic advice. Let's follow the money for your source.
https://climateinvestigations.org/heritage-foundation/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding
That source that you're pulling from, that conservative Christian think tank, has received nearly a million dollars from Exxon mobile. Let's follow that money.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=We%20now%20have%20totally%20unimpeachable,Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20Development%20funds.
The pot calling the ice cream-maker black. Reminds me of the sexual morality of the Catholic church.
What “research” dares to question it? All I’m seeing is the usual claims of “maybe data is being suppressed because of Big Climate” conspiracies. No research whatsoever. Just stupid claim after stupid claim by an economic commentator for a conservative think tank.
While it’s funny that he accurately describes himself, plenty of con man do the same thing. “I’m not gonna steal your money — what do you think I am, a con man?”
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
What’s funny about that?
Oh wait, you’re just imitating me, like a child. My bad— I forgot who I was dealing with.
Fits right in with everything else you’ve written. “Big oil” — no, “big climate!” :rofl:
Except plenty of progress has been made, and Moore’s claims that anyone is saying otherwise is, as usual, complete nonsense that you lap up unquestioningly.
For someone so skeptical of climate science, you sure do put a lot of trust in the Heritage Foundation and non-climate scientists.
It’s almost as if this were selective skepticism.
Just a non-biased source bravely questioning the establishment, the groupthink of scientists around the world who are just faking the data for research grants, and who don’t dare present the “evidence” disproving climate change.
People believe this stuff. Do people this ignorant really exist or am I being punk’d?
No no! Remember he said not to question the person or the institution. So that’s ruled out. Except when dealing with scientists and scientific institutions around the world — that’s where the real conspiracy lies.
NASA and the Royal Society? Questionable sources — never mind the evidence.
The Heritage Foundation? Hey stick with what’s said.
Mikie, you suffer from the worst case of "black-or-white" logical fallacy that I have ever seen. Compared to you devout christians are tolerant and reasonable. :grin:
No, I just have little tolerance for climate deniers spreading propaganda from the Heritage Foundation. There’s no “black and white” fallacy. And the attempts to portray those who listen to the counter scientists and overwhelming evidence is, as usual, quite pathetic.
Anyway — do you have anything left to add to this thread? Any more Koch propaganda you’d like to share? If not, consider running along.
Another [s]conspiracy[/s] narrative graph.
But how do we REALLY know there’s that much CO2 or that the temperatures have risen? Have YOU seen the thermometers or ice core samples? Have YOU been to Mauna Loa?
Science has been wrong before! We should question the [s]overwhelming evidence[/s] narratives! And I say this because I’m super smart and free thinking. Unlike the dupes that listen to these “climate scientist” types.
But Heritage Foundation is cool. And trustworthy. Because they have no reason whatsoever to undermine trust in science or deliberately manufacture doubt.
Congressman Tim Walberg, as per Time · May 31, 2017
Former president spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, as per Raw Story · Jan 22, 2019
Climate change denial in the Trump cabinet: where do his nominees stand?
[sup]— Mazin Sidahmed · The Guardian · Dec 15, 2016[/sup]
Maybe the US needs better voters.
"In history" you say, that is quite an absurd exaggeration. The ccp is accelerating it as well. And unchallenged, since they have no opposition from anyone. At least the Republicans have the dems constantly bitching about the world coming to an end and giving pushback.
No, it isn’t.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Strawman.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
China deflection.
Actually the CCP are doing far more than the Republicans. And they also don’t pretend climate change isn’t happening. Whatever their failings, they don’t hold a candle to the most dangerous organization in history.
But way to go exhuming that old diversion. :clap:
Nearly forgot about him. God and free markets. Two foundational beliefs.
What you did forget about Mikie is that MANY locations on Earth will be better because of a little global-warming.
Notice that this statement is NOT denying global-warming. It assumes that global-warming is happening.
Did you have a look at this website? As far as I know the republican party is not connected with this website. :grin:
https://weatherspark.com
US aims to create nuclear fusion facility within 10 years, Energy chief Granholm says
[sup]— Stephanie Liechtenstein, Matthew Daly · AP · Sep 25, 2023[/sup]
Quoting Jennifer Granholm
Ambitious.
:snicker: Yeah we’ve gone over this already. I think @unenlightened did a good job unpacking that statement.
My house burning down has positive aspects too— like creating lots of briquettes.
Anything else to say or are we now at the repeating BS state?
Quoting jorndoe
Indeed.
The Earth is much bigger and more complex than a house. We have been burning parts of the Earth (e.g. wood, coal, gas, oil, etc) for a long time, and this has improved the quality of life for most people (including you).
:ok:
Nevermind. Bye.
But do climate scientists have absolute faith in themselves?
These quotes come from Wikipedia's "Model accuracy" section of the "General circulation model" webpage"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Model_accuracy
IN OTHER WORDS, THE MODELS WERE WRONG. BUT INSTEAD OF CORRECTING THE MODELS THEY "DOCTORED" THE DATA TO MAKE IT LOOK AS IF THE MODELS WERE CORRECT.
THEY EVEN ADMIT THAT THE SATELLITE-BASED MEASUREMENTS COULD BE IN ERROR.
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
[hide]Borrowed from a prior post of mine a few months back. [/hide]
Pipe dream. a literal pipe dream. Two of them in fact. Hydrogen and fusion. Instead of taking action, fantasise about the magic bullet we will have in ten or twenty years. Maybe.
Instead of
Agriculture reform.
transport system reorganisation
building redesign
development of green energy sources and infrastructure including mass storage, using already available technology.
But in this case, of course, Do not follow the money.
https://www.desmog.com/2023/05/15/judith-curry-denier-montana-climate-trial/
[quote=Trenberth et al.]Chris Hipkins and Chris Luxon were both asked about climate change at the end of the leaders' debate this week, and neither response was helpful.
Both talked about cutting emissions – and in a personal capacity, recycling – but neither addressed the most important issue staring us in the face, and that is recognising that climate change is here, it is accelerating and getting worse, and it has consequences. We must adapt to the changes, plan for them and build resilience, and we need to do so urgently.[/quote]
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/beyond-recycling-what-to-do-about-climate-change
[quote=Trenberth]Since the late 1800s, global average surface temperatures have increased by about 1.1?, driven by human activities, most notably the burning of fossil fuels which adds greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and methane) to the atmosphere.
As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture in the form of water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas. This in turn amplifies the warming caused by our emissions of other greenhouse gases.
Some people mistakenly believe water vapour is a driver of Earth’s current warming. But as I explain below, water vapour is part of Earth’s hydrological cycle and plays an important role in the natural greenhouse effect. Its rise is a consequence of the atmospheric warming caused by our emissions arising especially from burning fossil fuels.[/quote]
https://theconversation.com/how-rising-water-vapour-in-the-atmosphere-is-amplifying-warming-and-making-extreme-weather-worse-213347
[quote=Trenberth]To address climate change threats in New Zealand will require more than mobilising private investment with a focus on renewable energy. It will need a comprehensive and collaborative approach that acknowledges dependencies on shipping and air travel, which continue to depend on fossil fuels.
Here are ten broad areas that must be considered when tackling the specific and sometimes unique challenges New Zealand faces in the years ahead.[/quote]
https://theconversation.com/meeting-the-long-term-climate-threat-takes-more-than-private-investment-10-ways-nz-can-be-smart-and-strategic-211100
And the ten point plan that follows is quite radical, sensible and doable without waiting for the magic bullet that is only decades away.
From your link:
Are you seriously comparing the $30,000 paid to Judith Curry with the $2.2 TRILLION that the US is spending to slow global warming?
Seriously ???
$400 an hour seems like a very reasonable rate for an expert's time.
Do you expect Montana to not use any expert witnesses to support their case? How much money do you think California has spent promoting climate alarmism?
How much do you think the dozen expert witnesses will be paid to support the other side of the case?
Yes. Please follow the money. For Judith Curry AND the other expert witnesses working for the other side of the case.
At least 2 of my comments have been removed.
They were about the climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and Judith Curry.
Can anybody please tell me why these comments were removed?
Nowadays the biggest problem is bullshit.
It is worth remembering that oil, and cars, saved humanity from drowning in horse shit. :grin:
Quoting Dr. Michael Crichton
Now I see how it works! One maverick retired scientist is a honest Joe getting fairly paid, but a dozen is a venal conspiracy. You must be right because everyone disagrees.
You’ve been corrected on this several times now. The US government is NOT spending 2.2 trillion on climate change. Not even close. And that figure is from a bill that didn’t pass anyway.
Stop deliberately spreading misinformation.
Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.
Quoting World Economic Forum
This quote states that $3.5 trillion a year is a 60% increase on todays level of investment.
So todays level of investment = $3.5 trillion divided by 1.6 = $2.1875 trillion
$2.1875 trillion is very close to $2.2 trillion, the amount that I mentioned
[added after the original post - I just realised that these numbers are for the whole world, not just the US]
Does daftness get tiresome?
Yes, you are tiresome Mikie. :rofl:
Good one?
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1201781387/climate-change-emissions-report-offers-hope
Yes, that report does offer some hope.
But I don't have faith that humans will achieve what they hope for.
I would be happy to be proved wrong.
I don't get your point about government spending to combat climate change. Are you saying there's a worldwide conspiracy by governments, scientists, and research institutes?
I am not saying that there is a worldwide conspiracy. I was just making the point that a very large amount of money is required to "go green" and fight climate-change/global-warming.
And it could be far less if people would be prepared to consume less. The problem is that people just assume sustainability is doing the same but greener. We really need a system change more than investments.
It should be noted that reluctance to swap over to nuclear doesn't just come from oil and gas producers, but also the fact that the nuclear energy market is largely dominated by the Russian company Rosatom.
Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia own a significant chunk of the oil and gas market, so why would Russia dominating the nuclear energy market be a deterrence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you here.
Who gives a damn about how you feel about this. This isn’t about personal feelings of optimism or pessimism or “faith in humans.”
I could say the same to YOU Mikie. Who gives a damn about how you feel about this.
You could, had I talked about my feelings. But I don’t. I assume no one is interested in my gut-feeling predictions.
You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing except “I don’t feel it’ll happen.” Okay, cool. Thanks for announcing that.
Okay Mikie, I will rephrase it for you. I don't think it will happen.
That is a complex issue. Consuming less implies a lower standard of living for many people, and a lower standard of living would be a hard sell to most everyone at anytime in history. However, less consumption does not necessarily correlate with a lower standard of living. There are ways that industries could be profitable without relying on endless compulsory consumption (in fact it has been done very successfully in the past, but abandoned for the more profitable model).
One of the problems with the more profitable model of endless compulsory consumption is obsolescence.
Nothing is made to last anymore, thus endless production and waste.
Imagine if the car industry had evolved to produce cars that could be easily maintained with universal modular replaceable parts (like a pc), so that you could buy one car that could last you forever. Think about how the engine module could easily be replaced with a more efficient one. The auto industry could have still made a killing on producing modules without unecessary infinite waste by-product.
Imagine if every asshole didn't need a new iphone every 2 seconds because they added a new pubic hair behind the camera. Apple is one of the most profitable industries ever because of the mythical upgrade - just another tragedy of brainless compulsory consumption.
People do indeed consume too much, but I cannot blame them because they have no other choice than a soon-to-be obsolete product. It is the forces of industry and commerce that hold all the blame - due to their greed and lack of vision.
I sincerely believe we will have to retreat into regional communities again and trade in the iPhone upgrade for actual connection with neighbours and nature.
As I have said before, the way to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used is for consumers to reduce their demand (individually or as a group). There is little point in blaming the oil companies for supplying a product that people want.
Individuals need to look at their own carbon footprint, not blame others (e.g. oil companies) for their own use of fossil fuels.
I can give you an example related to Merkwurdichliebe's comment. Apple have just released the iPhone 15. I am still using my iPhone 8. My iPhone 8 works as well as it did when I bought it, and it still does everything that I want it to do. I have avoided 7 new releases and have used the same iPhone for about 7 years.
You don't have to be a slave to Apple's upgrades. Apple products are usually very high quality and will perform well for many years. I suggest that you look at this webpage to see what the carbon footprint of an iPhone is:
https://www.compareandrecycle.co.uk/blog/iphone-lifecycle-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-iphone
Now I can feel sanctimonious because I have kept my carbon footprint down. :halo:
In the same way, you don't have to be a slave to the oil companies. The oil companies are not holding a gun to your head to force you to use fossil fuels. Grow some balls (or ovaries if you are female) and reduce your own carbon footprint. Force the oil companies to reduce the supply of fossil fuels by reducing the demand for fossil fuels.
Straight from Big Oil’s boardrooms to your brain. What a shocker.
Big oil coined ‘carbon footprints’ to blame us for their greed. Keep them on the hook
I will use the abbreviation CC/GW to stand for Climate-Change/Global-Warming.
Your comment Mikie (which is shared by many people who are concerned about CC/GW) is why I am so confident that CC/GW won't be "solved".
If whining and complaining and blaming others could solve CC/GW then there wouldn't be a problem.
The oil companies want to maximize profit. They don't want to over supply because that would mean less profit. They make maximum profit by matching demand. Reduce the demand and they will reduce the supply. Demand will be reduced if everybody reduces their carbon footprint. This is a simple and obvious fact which is not understood, or is ignored (possibly deliberately to avoid taking personal responsibility) by many/most people who are concerned about CC/GW.
Mikie, the solution to CC/GW is in your hands, and the hands of people like you. Stop blaming others and start taking personal responsibility. Who knows, you might make a difference?
Yeah, except no one is advocating that. It’s just another mental block you can’t seem to overcome.
This will not be solved individually. We need collective action and governmental action. You announcing that you’ve fallen for the BS oil propaganda isn’t surprising, but isn’t very interesting either.
I agree with this statement.
Collective action = lots of people reducing their carbon footprint.
Yep, including Big Oil and corporate America.
From the article above.
Again, nice to see even when you pretend to care about this issue you can't help but repeat stupid propaganda from BP. :up:
They did the maths, so you don't have to. 43 million children - and presumably quite a few adults too. We need more walls and higher walls. This is obviously a conspiracy.
"It's only just begun."
20,000 children displaced per day.
But it’s okay, because Bjorn Lomborg says it’s not a huge deal.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/copernicus-september-2023-unprecedented-temperature-anomalies#:~:text=September%202023%20global%20temperature%20was,1900%2C%20the%20preindustrial%20reference%20period.
Scrolling down past the temperature graphs, we come to the Antarctic sea ice graph. It looks scary.
That's 9% less reflective sea ice and 9% more dark absorbent open water as we head towards the Antarctic Summer.
I might be wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But pull your boat well up the beach next year.
Rosatom has a 38% world market share and in 2019 led in global uranium enrichment services (36%) and covers 16% of the global nuclear fuel market.
From here
I too hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re correct. The Amazon and Arctic aren’t far behind.
I'm not doing a thread on 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind', after all, I'm going for 'Mind and Nature' instead.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14707/reading-mind-and-nature-a-necessary-unity-by-gregory-bateson
[sup]— The Weather Network · Oct 15, 2023 · 1m:3s[/sup]
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120
It is real when the greatest philosophers of all time provide links
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/en/video/RuqVGk5I
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2314607120
Always be sure to include a graph or two that highlight the reality of it all.
Question - should we stop trying to reduce air pollution and aerosol pollution until after global-warming/climate-change is under control?
:halo:
To set one generation against another in this way does nothing but foster useless argument and resentment. Do what you can to help, and support whatever others can do to help, or just fuck off and die.
You might consider for a moment that the young are not householders by and large, and renters cannot invest in green living the way householders can. But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison.
It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". They blame almost everything on the older generation. Your statement "just fuck off and die" is typical of the younger generation's attitude towards the older generation. Are you trying to lead by example?
So it’s the “younger generation” that posted that shallow commentary from Michael Deacon? Damn those younglings.
Quoting unenlightened
:up:
I must be young at heart then at 71 and three quarters. You do know that Deacon is a satirical journalist don't you? Take what he says with a pinch of irony, maybe.
If I remember right, those people are mostly concerned with policy.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Or climate activists calling out policymakers.
Many a true word is said in jest.
Perhaps you are going through your second childhood. :grin:
Quoting unenlightened
If you are 71 and three quarters then you are likely to die before me. :halo:
That rather depends on who (if anyone) decides to fuck with you, and how.
[quote=Bob Dylan]But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
You’ll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
"Only a pawn in their game."[/quote]
Think carefully about the implications of this statement.
125,000 years ago it was as warm as today, or warmer.
The CO2 level 125,000 years ago was about 300 ppm, and the temperature was a few degrees Celsius warmer than today.
So at the moment we have a higher CO2 level, but a lower temperature than 125,000 years ago.
In fact, the current temperature is lower than the peak temperatures for the previous 3 interglacials.
To put it another way, current temperatures are not higher than they were in the past.
It's been a lot hotter, yes. There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling. That event was actually due to large amounts of CO2 being pumped into the air from volcanoes, though. So we are headed for increased weather volatility and stress to survive it around the world. Yay!
When are you talking about Frank? The graph that I displayed shows the history over the last 420,000 years. Are you claiming that "There used to be jungles at the poles and the equator water was close to boiling" at some time in the last 420,000 years?
The graph shows a regular pattern with peaks about every 100,000 years. I don't think that major volcanic activity is likely to happen on such a regular schedule.
The earth seems to have 2 states, glacial and interglacial, and it regularly moves between the 2 states. We are currently in an interglacial and the current temperature is lower than the previous 3 interglacials. The current very high CO2 level has not increased the temperature above the temperature of a "normal" interglacial.
What proof do you have that the current temperature is not just a "normal" temperature for an interglacial?
No, that was 50 million years ago.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
True. There are huge number of variables that go into climate conditions. That's why they use super computers to model it.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
They model the climate with super computers and they subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere. That tells us what the climate would be like without our contribution. 100s of scientists did that. That's where the IPCC came from.
Look carefully at the graph you posted, and you will see that the previous peak temperature was about 125,000 years ago and was just a tad higher than now. So the quote is an accurate description of what is in the graph.
But what you leave out that is highlighted on the graph with a nice red highlighter, is how very out of the 400,000 year cycle the Co2 level is at the moment. We have thrown a C02 quilt on the planet that will warm it to a level unprecedented in at least the 400,000 years of that graph, it being obvious that the actual temperature lags behind the measure of the insulation. The CO2 level is literally off the scale, and in 50 to 100 years, the temperature will be too.
Not only that, but the steepness of the rise is also unprecedented, meaning that the change in climate will be unprecedentedly fast, making the adaptation of the biological environment more difficult. Forests, for example can only move very slowly, by the reach of their seeds per year.
But kudos for almost finding a mistake in a news item. :roll:
This is usually the elephant in the room when it comes to discussions with climate denialists. Insofar as the denialism is motivated by an emotional need for climate change to not be true, which is often the case, it's usually straight up ignored.
But I do remember that @Agree-to-Disagree did acknowledge the effects of CO2 earlier in this thread, so one does wonder where all of this is going.
I think he's just here to poke unenlightened in the butt.
Always happy to be someone's significant other. :joke:
You pitbulls need to stick together.
But it's the human way of learning (if learning happens at all): learning from your mistakes and simply learning by doing.
Let's say you're right and the impending climate crisis is zero percent due to human activity, do you propose we do nothing to address it?
You wouldn't find the average person, with no formal (or even informal) training or education walking into a physics or engineering department and lecturing the teachers -- based on a few news articles they've read, or the 30 minutes they've taken to "think critically and skeptically" about the issue, supposedly finding mistakes that all the world's experts have missed.
You wouldn't see this in any other field -- that hasn't been politicized, of course. If something has been manufactured as "controversial," then these ridiculous claims can be made. Suddenly they're "skeptics" just "asking questions." Yeah, sure.
Thus, we have nonsense claims about building structures from 9/11 "truthers," bogus claims about vaccines from anti-vaxxers, laughable statements about geology from creationists, and god knows what from flat-earthers.
You would think these imbeciles would hesitate when it comes to science. Especially science that is so overwhelmingly supported. But it doesn't stop them. They simply must embarrass themselves over and over.
When I was a child, I did the same thing -- it was my way of learning, in the end. Rather than ask questions, I pretended I knew what I was talking about regarding biochemistry. But I grew out of that. It would be nice if climate deniers did the same -- but since it's not about evidence anyway, I won't hold my breath.
Frank, I was a computer programmer for the last 40 years. Just because they "model the climate with super computers" doesn't prove that they are correct. A climate model is based on many assumptions. To "subtract out the CO2 humans have put up into the atmosphere" they need to know how big the effect is. This relies on assumptions. The IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. That is a very wide range. Which value did the climate scientists use?
If 100s of climate scientists make the same incorrect assumptions then they will all get the same incorrect answers. If the majority of people think that the earth if flat it doesn't mean that the earth really is flat.
I didn't say that the news item is wrong. What I said is based on the assumption that the news item is correct.
I am more of a breast type of guy. :wink:
But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake.
I just saw a news thing that said the revised ECS is 4.8. It would be sweet if the revised ECS was lower than previously thought. It's higher though. That's how I know I haven't stumbled into an alternate universe. The news is worse than expected. :worry:
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
True. I was just answering the question you asked.
I think that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels. But slowly enough to not cause very large problems. When the technology is really better than fossil fuels then people will be queuing up to get it. They won't need subsidies and pushing.
The fact is that sea levels are rising. Whether due to human activity or not. We need to make infrastructure changes for this. But infrastructure eventually needs replacing anyway, and this is an opportunity to improve it.
Okay. If it was in the news then it must be correct. :wink:
You aren't sufficiently informed, to speak with anywhere near the authority you pretend to. The VERY expensive mistake, of allowing the CO2 levels to continue to rise, has been ongoing for decades.
The notion of dumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere has been under consideration for a long time:
It's indicative of how bad we have let it get, that polluting the atmosphere in additional ways has to be considered as a possible option.
How about some basic epistemology?
If an event is reported in the news, that is evidence the event happened, correct? Mind you, not conclusive proof, but evidence.
And if several news stations report the event, then it is more likely the event did occur, correct? It is possible they're all simply repeating the same story, or have made the exact same error, but prima facie it still increases the odds.
If it bleeds, it leads.
Not interested? Ok then. What are you doing here though?
That sort of thing used to be the norm. But now in the Post Truth era, one decides on an expedient conclusion, then cherrypicks data to support the predetermined conclusion. You really need to get with the times...
So according to you there is evidence for horoscopes, the loch ness monster, bigfoot, yeti, aliens, UFO's, homeopathy, conspiracy theories, ghosts, etc.
These subjects are in the news repeatedly, but that doesn't mean that the odds of them being true is increased.
The ECS has been notoriously difficult to pin down. Even after decades of scientific investigation the IPCC says that there is high confidence that the ECS is within the range of 2.5 °C to 4 °C, with a best estimate of 3 °C. So why should we suddenly believe a new value of 4.8 °C that is reported in the news? This is outside of the high confidence range stated by the IPCC. And as far as I know the IPCC has not accepted this new value.
Quoting Echarmion
I am discussing climate change. What are you doing here?
It's true that predictions about future climate change are in a range, not precise numbers.
Sure. There's evidence.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I was referring to an event specifically, that means something happening at a specific time and place. Things get trickier when we deal with other subjects more broadly, and I wanted to start simple.
Assume you know nothing about either the event X or the sources. In the three scenarios:
A) There's no reporting on X,
B) a single source is reporting X happened,
C) 10 sources report X happened,
would you not agree that the chance that X did actually happen is highest in scenario C?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I'm making no argument regarding that specific claim.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Are you? Because it doesn't look like that's what you're doing.
I have recently posted about:
- the ECS
- my belief that we should slowly move away from using fossil fuels
- what I think we should do about rising sea levels
- a news item with the title "2023 'virtually certain' to be warmest in 125,000 years - EU scientists"
- a news item with the title "Scientists warn Earth warming faster than expected — due to reduction in ship pollution"
- the reason why the climate scientist James Hansen thinks that the Earth is warming faster than expected
Do you think that these topics are not relevant to climate change?
They are. But it seems to me you're not interested in what everyone else has to say, and rather in having a soap box to display your "scepticism". Which I'm putting in quotes because unlike actual scepticism, it mostly looks like motivated reasoning adopting the aesthetics of scepticism.
Case in point being that you only reply to the bits of posts that you feel comfortable with, ignoring the rest.
A bad faith poster, basically, cherrypicking evidence to support a position they never explicitly declare, and so never have to defend or concede. A time-waster, who will never give up because time wasting is the whole project, and communication is not on the agenda.
I do wonder why though. What is the specific motivation?
I am interested in what other people have to say. I am inviting people to comment on the topics that I post about. If you have anything constructive to say then you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Do you reply to every bit of every post? Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
You are attacking me personally without commenting on what I have said. Making an ad hominem attack on a Philosophy Forum is the ultimate irony.
Quoting unenlightened
At least I don't tell lies to support my comments.
Oh, the irony, it burns.
One could say that, in a sense, spite really is a major contributor.
No wonder the world is getting hotter.
You're onto something. I'm stuck on spite. How do I get respite? Is it like acquiring worms?
You two are so poetical. You both move forward one square at a time, while capturing diagonally, and if you happen to begin the debate, your first move has the option to move forward two squares instead of one...like the rest of us
Can we discount spite as a reasonable response? Might spite not be called for in certain situations?
My main question is: What if there were greater existential threats to humanity than climate change, would the apathy on those issues not be good reason to be spiteful over all the climate change hype?
What if the problem of climate change has less to do with human caused carbon emissions, and more to do with the natural phenomenon of human conflict, transgression, &c.? Could science even measure that?
Checkmate. :cool: :up: :party:
I have posted something like this before.
I have lived through many existential threats to humanity.
- All through my childhood the doomsday clock was sitting at 5 minutes to 12 (fears about nuclear war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R)
- predictions of worldwide famine in the 1970s and 80s
- Malthusian panic and the population bomb
- the 1973 oil crisis caused by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
- acid rain
- ozone depletion
- an impending ice age
- Halley's comet
- the Large Hadron Collider
- the Y2K bug
- various pandemics
- The Mayan Calendar prediction of 2012
- Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
- Peak Oil In 2000
- Peak Oil in 2010
- Peak Oil in 2020
- Pending depletion and shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
- Oceans dead in a decade (prediction made in 1970)
- Covid
- etc
My biggest fear now is that humanity and the earth will be decimated by the attempts to "solve" global-warming/climate-change.
I understand, self inflicted decimation, so that even if all the models turned out to be entirely accurate, so that the current green revolution were the perfect solution, we will have weakened ourselves in the global arena so much that there is little hope of enforcing the green agenda on the will-be global hegemons that care little for our green agenda.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/09/climate/global-warming-hottest-year-history-climate-intl/index.html
Just as was known and predicted, decades ago. Only getting worse from here.
I think this would be entirely to convenient. A nice and easy self-absolution.
If there are greater existential threats, then of course we would have to fight them concurrently. Of course since climate change is heavily bound up with our economic system, we'd need to be doing that regardless.
Spite is the easy way out. Masking your own unwillingness to act by pointing to the hypocrisy of others.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Then we'd try to address that. Certainly the problem of climate change goes beyond simply making a few personal choices. It's a systemic issue. But starting from the perspective that it is some metaphysical force that cannot be addressed anyways is again a very convenient way to justify one's one comfortable inactions.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
But the earth and humanity are already being decimated. It seems very silly to cling to this specific status quo as if it were suddenly the divine providence, as opposed to just another contingent situation we find ourselves in.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Are you under the impression that the western way of life currently stands any chance of surviving? Because I don't. Right now, the authoritarian, technocratic vision, which in some ways is being pioneered by China, is clearly winning. And this is not just a case of "China taking over" but of an inability to envision an alternative to clearly falling systems.
There is no 'if' about it. The greatest threat to humanity is the collapse of the economy. The new industrial revolution combining 3d printing and AI mean that mass production and consumption are becoming unnecessary, as a means to wealth and power. The mass of humanity entirely lacks the wisdom to control the economy, and so mass production and consumption - and hence the mass of humanity - will end. The failure to tackle climate change is just a convenient means to accelerate things a little. "Keep calm and carry on", is all we know how to do, like our cousins the lemmings.
This headline is misleading because it creates the impression that the US is warming faster than other countries.
The fact is that almost every country is warming faster than the global average. The reason is that the global average includes the oceans which cover about 70% of the earth, and they are warming slower and less than the land.
Is this headline intended to cause fear and anxiety?
The world’s fossil fuel producers are planning expansions that would blow the planet’s carbon budget twice over, a UN report has found. Experts called the plans “insanity” which “throw humanity’s future into question”.
The energy plans of the petrostates contradicted their climate policies and pledges, the report said. The plans would lead to 460% more coal production, 83% more gas, and 29% more oil in 2030 than it was possible to burn if global temperature rise was to be kept to the internationally agreed 1.5C. The plans would also produce 69% more fossil fuels than is compatible with the riskier 2C target.
The countries responsible for the largest carbon emissions from planned fossil fuel production are India (coal), Saudi Arabia (oil) and Russia (coal, oil and gas). The US and Canada are also planning to be major oil producers, as is the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is hosting the crucial UN climate summit Cop28, which starts on 30 November.
Is there any hope for humanity and the earth?
:up:
Taken out of context, it might appear to be, but the article provides further detail. The associated report was the work of 'an exhaustive distillation of climate science compiled by more than 750 experts across the US federal government'.
I don't think it's 'alarmist'. I think it's alarming. As to why the US, in particular, is exposed to such effects, there might be geographical, topological and climatic reasons for the impact on the US in particular, but I guess one would have to read the report to find out.
Of course it is. Headlines are designed to grab your attention, by evoking some emotion.
It is a tragedy that because such manipulation has been going on for a century and more, we have learned to ignore these things as the exaggeration has become wilder and wilder. The same thing happens with fire alarms. Too many false alarms result in folk ignoring them when the fire is real. Thus a whole academic discipline of climate scientists and Earth science researchers end up being treated like a hysterical headline writer.
The collapse you describe in the economy is not such a big threat. It will be painful and might required decades of authoritarianism and revolution. Or even a collapse in civilisation. But the threat from climate change is existential. Anyone who has looked into it realises this and usually refrains from telling others for fear of becoming a doom monger.
Your arguments fail if one simply substitutes the idea of pollution for the idea of greenhouse gasses.
The economic collapse is part of climate change, just because the economy is predicated on the eternal expansion of fossil fuel consumption and waste dumping . When the burgers run out the white man will get angry. Angry toddler with nuclear arsenal may not wait for the seas to close over his head.
I've been pondering for years the way the present situation is similar to the world prior to the collapse of the Bronze Age. One expert, Eric Cline, believes the end of the Bronze age was brought about by a "perfect storm" of factors including war, natural disasters, and class warfare internal to the great nations of the time. Any one of them would have been survivable, but together, they weren't. What I disagree with is the notion that the coming collapse, if there is one, will mean the end of the human species. I mean, it could, but there isn't reason to believe it has to.
One of the things that was spawned by the Bronze Age collapse is the very thing we all think is killing us now: the free market economy. The seeds of what we are were created in that event. My guess is the same will happen again: the collapse will spawn a new human species who will one day discover where they came from, as we only discovered the Bronze Age in the 20th Century.
By the way, the book of Genesis is basically made up of mythology from the Bronze Age, although it's splintered and rearranged. The Old Testament is a link to that lost world. I wonder what myths of our own will survive.
I doubt very much that any of these means would wipe out humanity. That would require a significant natural intervention, like an asteroid, or rapid changes in the global conditions. However I consider our current bloated civilisation(in terms of numbers) to be more vulnerable than smaller cases.
The issue with climate change is the consequences of a rapid mass extinction, or the rapid changes that would result from a runaway climate change process. These would both impact simultaneously and I doubt if humanity would survive. Although some mammals might survive, or vertebrates at least.
If mammals survived humanity would evolve again.
In the event that we mitigated climate change rapidly and managed to reverse it to some extent, we might just hang on. Although this would depend on the extinction event to be quite limited and the runaway affects of climate change were slowed sufficiently for us and nature to adapt.
I haven't seen any scientists talk about "runaway climate change." I don't even know what that's supposed to be. There are positive and negative feedback loops, there are tipping points, but no runaway. The earth has been much hotter than it will be with anthropogenic climate change, and so we know what that looks like.
And if humans were wiped out, I'd put my money on insect supercolonies to evolve into a new form of life. Just as we're made up of individual cells, they'll be made up of individual organisms. That would be cool.
I would put my money on bacteria. Bacteria have always ruled to earth, and always will rule the earth.
Bacteria love global warming. They would like temperatures to be about 5 to 10 degrees Celsius warmer than current temperatures. Then they can reproduce at their optimum rate, replicating once every 20 minutes.
That is about where I am. A lot depends on all those tipping points and positive and negative feedbacks as well as what humans do in the next couple of decades. A runaway hothouse scenario is possible that would eliminate almost all complex land based life. 6°C is more possible, and would be unspeakably bad. But there is no precedent, so nobody knows.
Quoting frank
They'll use your money for nest material.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
They'll eat your money.
I know, they write operas about it. You just have to have tiny ears and they only last about twenty seconds.
Quoting unenlightened
I was hoping they would dig up an empty bag potato chips and put it in a museum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
Yes insects could inherit the earth. It largely depends on which animals become extinct and which survive. It may only be bacteria though if the warming gets to much.
https://www.okdoomer.io/10-reasons-our-civilization-will-soon-collapse/
I see. But that article says there is no chance it could happen on earth right now. It said that in a few billion years when the sun is hotter, it would be possible.
They've already won. Always have. Plants and animals are just bacterial megacities.
My father was an esteemed professor of medicine and one of the generation of doctors that introduced birth control to civilisation. He read the Club of Rome report which was famously pessimistic about the future of Western civilisation. He was utterly convinced that India would face mass starvation and economic collapse in his lifetime (he died in 1993), hence his interest in birth control programs in India. He had a rather pessimist outlook, although his public persona was never dour or negative. But, in any case, he was wrong. Some unexpected developments came along that completely changed living standards in India. One was the ‘green revolution’ which dramatically improved crop yields. Another was the ‘tech revolution’ which gave hundreds of millions of Indians a pathway out of subsistence farming and into middle-class technologically-enabled lifestyles. So I agree that the world is facing vast challenges, but trying to resist doomsayers, on that account. (By the way, a provocative book on the subject is John Michael Greer’s Collapse Now and Avoid the Rush.)
I didn’t mean to be that alarmist.
What I was thinking of by runaway is when the tipping points and feedback loops become triggered and fall like dominoes. Releasing, (or stop removing) greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere which dwarfs the amount we have been releasing by burning fossil fuels. Once that point is reached life will become very tumultuous and difficult.
I don’t think we can know what that means. But what we do know is sea level will rise more rapidly to a maximum of over 90 metres. Ocean ecosystems will collapse, most land ecosystems will be under extreme stress, many will collapse. Growing enough food to feed the population will become impossible. And this will last, or get worse for thousands of years.
During the European dark ages, there were times when monasteries were like fortresses, protecting the last vestiges of civilization Europe had left. If you wanted to see a library, they only existed in the monasteries.
I'm guessing it will be that way for a while. Who knows what will follow from there. Something really cool probably.
Hopefully nuclear bombs won’t be thrown into the mix.
I think Washington and Moscow could possibly be gone in a couple of centuries from nuclear war. We won't be around to see it tho.
I see Russia as a failed state now. I expect it would be Washington versus Beijing. In which case I don’t see it happening.
But hasn't it been failing off and on for like 800 years?
Quoting Punshhh
That would be cool if they avoided war and just had the occasional cold war.
:up:
Russia is invincible and will never fall out.
I agree. A million years from now the surface of the earth will be covered in a swirling mist that is basically Russia waiting for some aliens to visit so it can morph itself into their form and confuse the hell out of everybody.
Changes from 1884 to 2022 in global temperatures from cooler than average to hotter.(Supplied: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio)
You're right, but only if fossil fuels were banned overnight. The best perspective is to consider projections based on the current status quo.
(See: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49876). Energy use is projected to grow substantially, and most of that growth in demand will be met with non-fossil fuels. Meanwhile, there will continue to be modest growth in the consumption of fossil fuels. Policy change could reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, without eliminating it, by increasing use of renewables. This would be gradual, and not have the negative impacts you suggest. There would be a gradual shift in workforce from the fossil fuel industry to renewable energy jobs, and at no time would there be a sudden change that displaces workers or causes energy cost to jump up.
Quoting Relativist
Please stop making posts that are reasonable and based on common sense. Somebody might believe you. :grin:
https://www.channel4.com/news/undercover-filming-highlights-saudi-plan-to-artificially-raise-oil-demand#
What's artificial in that you promote what your country can provide?
Anyway, with the current prices I'm sure that they have to promote oil products. Having seen over 100 dollar per barrel prices and having now well over 50 dollar prices make alternative energy sources quite competitive (this year Brent prices have been over 70 dollars, now it's 80 dollars).
Probably because they're a bunch of conspiracy theorists a doom merchants. Unless the policy was a secret one that directly contradicted their public commitments on climate or something complicated like that.
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Miracle.2023.12.07.pdf
Meh.
Quoting Mikie
They must be really worried, to commit to beginning to maybe think about actually doing something at some point, after only 28 summits.
And the media celebrates and flogs themselves over how mean they were to the fossil fuel executive who led the summit.
Microplastic pollution rained down on Canada during a hurricane
[sup]— Carolyn Wilke · New Scientist · Dec 7, 2023[/sup]
It's raining microplastics: Hurricane Larry dropped plastic particles all over N.L.
[sup]— Jean-Benoit Legault · Toronto Star · Dec 16, 2023[/sup]
Everybody inhales microplastics. We need to do some research on the effects of that.
Not at all, no. I'm fully accepting of anthropocentric climate change (though, i certainly have quibbles around what exactly the implications are - and I don't think its reasonable to suggest that is settled) and yet do not feel any real moral reason to take massive, global action. I'm open to reasons and discussions, but i have no intuition that we need to, or should, do much about it. I'm not going to accept a 'well, you're a monster' then type response as meaningful.
I would also suggest perhaps not positing someone is a 'buffoon' for not sharing your moral intuitions :) Particular as I would also note it appears old mate is being fairly glib. The air conditioning comment can't really be taken seriously and I don't read it as intended to be more than a poke of the bear.
It's a moot point. China is presently in the process of building about 50 coal burning power plants, so there really isn't any global action to take. Most interested parties have moved on to considering the challenges of adaptation.
That has always seemed a more reasonable approach to me, so fair enough lol.
:up:
Then you’re simply not paying attention. And I mean that respectfully— we can’t all pay attention to everything. So in my own case, I look into it by reading what experts have to say— experts that don’t have motivation to exaggerate or deny the evidence. I’ve been doing so very carefully now for over a decade.
There’s simply too much information to summarize, and because I’ve done so several times I have little interest in doing so again, especially to silly comments like the one you quoted (as probably just “poking the bear” — why anyone would want to joke around about it, I don’t know). So what I do is ask that you check out what these sources have you say about the warming planet and what it means for biodiversity and human life.
We’re seeing the damages already. Depending on how things go — meaning how hot it gets — we face either a very changed but perhaps manageable world to a catastrophe that could make life either a living hell or wipe out human life completely.
It’s not about intuitions, it’s about facts. Fortunately, the facts are not disputed— nor is that we should do something about it. True, you may not care— fine. That doesn’t change what’s happening, nor what will happen (e.g., biodiversity loss, icecap melt, agricultural disruption, massive coastal flooding, deadly heat waves, famine, droughts, etc.) if it continues without efforts to decrease and eventually negate emissions.
I’ll repost a prior article of mine that outlines some of the evidence, below.
In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:
Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.
What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:
That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.
So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.
One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?
Turns out there is.
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?
The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."
But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.
So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.
Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?
I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.
In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
You are not addressing the point i've made in any way whatsoever. Respectfully. This is obviously something that ignites a serious passion in you, and that's admirable.
I simply don't care.
Quoting Mikie
Exactly. That is your opinion. It is not mine, despite likely agreeing on the basics of the 'facts' of the matter. Though, i appreciate you taking this route instead of trying to assert that my lack of moral alarm is somehow indicative of psychopathy :P
Quoting Mikie
Surely not, given the above. But i think jokes are fun. I cannot conceive of why the subject matters to that.
Okay— what was the point?
Quoting AmadeusD
Was this the point? In which case, why bother coming here and announcing it?
I’d like the human species to go on. You don’t care. Fine— but I can’t do much with that.
Sure — there is this guy on YouTube that’s very funny and tackles Climate change in an amusing way:
You've insulted someone for not sharing your moral intuitions. I don't think that's a helpful, or coherent position to take.
One need not deny the facts to come to different conclusions; we can co-exist in that state.
Quoting Mikie
I suppose i'm trying to ascertain where your certitude that we should care comes from, and how it's informing your passion to encourage others to essentially hold the same moral outlook at yourself. But my 'point' is more that i think it's misguided to be so certain in your moral reactions, as to allow yourself to denigrate others on that basis. Particularly over a joke :P
Quoting Mikie
Nice. I found the previous commenter's joke funny too :) No trouble here. Thanks for the video!
First, I didn’t do that exactly. Second, why you’d dig up an interaction from two years ago in which you clearly have no context or connection is a little strange. But so be it— it’s true I’m not always nice.
Quoting AmadeusD
You and him don’t deny the facts because you don’t know the facts, really. (Here I’m referring to what the consequences of warming are, which are well established — but even if they weren’t, I don’t see how anyone can justify not caring about the possibility. Ditto nuclear war.)
Quoting AmadeusD
Well I do make the assumption that rational human beings care about themselves, their kids and grandkids, and generally the survival of the human species. I fully acknowledge there are some that don’t. But generally those people are labeled psychopaths and are relatively rare.
So it’s not that we “should” care — I assume it’s a given. I don’t say “you SHOULD care about your kids”, I assume it when talking to a parent. If someone were to ask, “Why are you so certain that I SHOULD care about my kids?” I wouldn’t really know how to respond pragmatically.
Quoting AmadeusD
No problem- be well!
Hi mate,
Just to preface this, because it's going to come across slightly combative, I have no skin in this argument. I accept the facts about anthropocentric climate change (despite your assertion; more below). and have no problem with you, or you holding your views. I in fact called them admirable. I am just concerned for any moral proclamations that assert one must have got something wrong. So, that disclaimer in place...
I'm unsure calling someone buffoon for not caring the way you do is anything other than that..
I generally don't check dates on posts. I see things i find interesting and reply :) Apologies if that's not your jam! Genuinely; folk do stuff differently. It wasn't personal at all. As none other of my comments are!!
Quoting Mikie
This is both not in any way inferable from having a different moral reaction, and it is in fact, counter to the truth. As i've noted, I understand and accept, basically, the 'mainstream' line on anthropocentric climate change. You do not need to posit all these empirical differences to account for our moral differences. This somewhat encapsulates why your take makes me both chuckle, and want to prod a bit. If your assertion is that one requires an in-depth, technical knowledge of climate change science to form a valid moral response to it, I'm just off the bus a few stops back. That's all. But..
It seems that for you, if I do not share your moral reaction, I necessarily must either have access to different information (i.e wrong/incomplete by your lights) or a defective understanding/interpretation. That is just simply void of any validity whatsoever, in any sense.
If that is not the case, forgive, but that is exactly what you are illustrating above. Your assertion that my non-denial is 'because' I don't know the facts is just plain ridiculous, though. So even with my potential error in your thought, what you've said is the kind of unsupportable position I'm trying to deal with in the previous paragraph...
Well, isn’t that better than assuming they’re psychopaths? I don’t think that’s better really. So I assume it’s ignorance.
Quoting AmadeusD
But again, if you look at that interaction, you’d see I’m not really doing that — I’m calling him a buffoon because he was aggressively ignorant and spread genuinely dangerous nonsense and refused to learn anything about the subject to boot. He didn’t simply say “I don’t really care about the topic of climate change or doing anything about it.”
Quoting AmadeusD
True, you could have an accurate account, knowing full well what’s in store for humanity if we do nothing, and simply don’t care — in which case, you’re not ignorant, you’re just a psychopath. But I prefer my approach of assuming you aren’t, but rather haven’t fully grasped the consequences of 3 or 4 degrees of warming. That’s not at all invalid— in fact I think it’s a fair approach on my part.
I can look at nuclear weapons and go “eh, my intuitions tell me we don’t really need to do much about this,” but is that valuable in any way? Who cares about intuitions? We’re dealing with reality. What you appear to be saying is “I don’t think there will be many consequences to climate change— the facts are unsettled on that issue— and so I feel little moral impetus to do anything about it.” I’m saying you’re factually wrong, and that if you were better informed of the consequences you wouldn’t feel that way anymore— provided you’re relatively normal.
Sure, and I did thank you for not taking the 'latter' route :) . But, neither is required or inferable. Both speak a bit more to the shakiness of your conviction, to a third party. Morals just differ... Whether that's 'correct' ethically isn't the question here. There's no logical reason to infer a fault in a disagreement about value.
Quoting Mikie
I would say, yes, and i would even ascribe 'ignorance' to the commenter. But this is exactly what I intuited, and described - his lack of interest isn't buffoonery anymore than you're not being interested in why I don't care is *shrug*. I would say pointless, though. Obviously, two people trying to share in differing values is (almost) always pointless! That's fair enough. It's the personalised attack thats irking.
Quoting Mikie
No. I am neither a psychopath, nor do i care much about hte results of patent anthropocentric climate change. Both of those thing are true.
And further, you cannot infer different from my moral reaction. If your form of deduction rests on such a wild black and white fallacy, i think you're charge of buffoonery might be more than a little ironic ;)
There are so many assumptions on your position it's hard to tease apart without sounding like an utter wanker.
What do you infer by 'care about'? How do you ascribe this to non-persons? I am an anti-natalist. Does that explain your lack of understanding of position? Because psychopathy isn't on the table anymore, for you.
Quoting Mikie
Its not fair, reasonable or anything other than a protection of your emotional investment. Sunk-fallacy and all that.
You've a world-view that allows for only two options with regard to an adequate understanding of climate change:
1. One knows about climate change adequately, and cares the same way you do;
2. One knows about climate change adequately, and is a psychopath
This is - to put it mildly - f'ing ridiculous.
True. Some people don’t care about others. Some want to murder and rape, etc. Clearly true.
Quoting AmadeusD
In this case, there is. Again, assuming the person isn’t one who cares nothing about others. Assuming the person does care about others, they wouldn’t truly want to do nothing while the planet burns. They simply don’t know how serious the matter is— hence, ignorance.
I’m ignorant of plenty of things, and my ignorance has caused harm I’m sure. That’s on me. But had I known differently, I wouldn’t have said or done what I did. Why? Because I really do care about other people. My remarks online, for example, may be far more hurtful than I realize. But don’t really know, and when my temper gets the better of me, I’m not considering that possibility anyway. If I were to fully know just how harmful they could be, however, I almost certainly wouldn’t say them.
You get the idea.
Quoting AmadeusD
Calling someone a buffoon for their dangerous ignorance is more irksome to you than the ignorance itself? Ok! That’s not always true with me.
Quoting AmadeusD
So you’re not interested in what happens to the human species? I really do find that abnormal, yes. Maybe not psychopathy— maybe just nihilism.
Quoting AmadeusD
I absolutely can. If someone sits by while someone drowns, then says “I don’t care what happens, and there’s nothing you can infer from this because it’s all subjective, feeling-based moral intuitions that are completely outside the purview of fact or objectivity” — yeah, there’s a name for such a person.
Seems like you want to somehow absolve your own ignorance and apathy by removing it from any scrutiny— as if morals are simply “I like Mozart, you like Beethoven”. I’m not that interested in discussing moral relativism. We’re dealing with a real problem in the real world— not an academic debate on ethics. Global warming is a threat to humanity and if we don’t do something about it it will inflict real pain on real people, both present and future generations. Your simply “not caring” about that is your business. Again, it’s due to either ignorance or some kind of anti-social psychology. Which is why I suggest learning a little more about it rather than going with your feels.
Hmm.. I think I see what you're trying to establish - putting the glibness aside, I think you've jumped from morals to actions and back(I would also posit those things are a result of a lack of impulse control, rather than an actual intention to do those things actively, as it were).
You're conflating actions (readily understood to represent a defect (though, I would argue its not a moral defect, but a neurological defect per above hypothesis)), and a mere moral difference of opinion. (be careful not to jump forward to actions from here... they may be inferred, but not entailed. I have no issue with action being taken to combat climate change anyway). I don't have any particular view on actions being taken - Could be good to do so, might not be.
Quoting Mikie
There, unequivocally, is not. You not understanding my moral/emotional reaction is absolutely no matter for this conflict of moral position. You don't understand my mental state here, and can't conceive of it without inferring psychopathy.
That's factually inaccurate, as I am neither a psychopath nor do I have a strong stance in caring about climate change. Sorry. The facts are stacked against you conclusively on this.
Quoting Mikie
Hmm, again, that's just your position. Nothing more, nothing less, and it says absolutely nothing about anyone but you. There is absolutely nothing factual, objective, or verifiable about that claim.
Quoting Mikie
Perhaps. But that is a far cry from your position elsewhere, even in this same post. I also pointed out i'm an anti-natalist. A fully valid position that results in my not really caring about this issue. No nihilism required. I still very much enjoy my life when i can, and appreciate that those around me also do. I recommend Rivka Weinberg on this particular topic and how it doesn't denote any kind of anti-social attitude.
Quoting Mikie
This is true - and I am not denying there are swathes of (lol) denialists who come to the same conclusion as I (emotionally speaking) or, more importantly, an actively negative position on combating CC, but deny the base facts of your position (i.e moral reaction). So, we've got at least three distinct positions - none of which require psychopathy to be inferred. Assuming what you mean is nihilism, that's not required either as outlined above.
Quoting Mikie
Yes, and yes :)
Quoting Mikie
You might want to pull back from using examples that are readily distinguishable. I'm not going to answer to this one. The eg of a child drowning is not at all correlative of the climate crisis. That's a rather silly and kafka-esque illustration to my mind.
Quoting Mikie
Scrutinize all you want. That's actually what we're doing here. I've rejected one black and white fallacy around the position. and in fact, semi-accepted one other. That's all. The discussion is on going.
Ive denied only the logical inference of psychopathy from differing morals. That's ...absolutely fine.
Quoting Mikie
It isn't, So there we are :)
Quoting Mikie
That is exactly what you are doing. Your emotional reaction is causing you to make wild speculations about another person's mental state - because you cannot fathom the possibility that the amount of time and effort you've sunk into this topic might be relatively unimportant (see, i can do it too!).
Neither my take there, or yours, is in any way reasonable. We do not disagree about hte facts. We have a different moral reaction within the bounds of general human cognition. I am not alone, and I am not even on the fringes in this. If you're seriously suggesting there is only one allowable moral reaction to the climate crisis, I cannot continue taking you seriously.
Morality is based on action. It's actions that matter, it's actions that can be judged. Whatever a person may believe is relevant, but in this case only to the extent that it leads to action or inaction.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
So you have no "intuition" that we should do anything about it (we should), or need to (we do), but yet have no problem if we do. You're fine either way. Cool. Pointless, but cool.
Quoting AmadeusD
There is, and I've done so. Correctly. That you're struggling with it doesn't change that.
Quoting AmadeusD
There's nothing to understand. Either you care about the well being of others, or you don't. If you don't, you're a psychopath -- although there are other terms for it too (I mentioned nihilism). But that's not you, I don't think -- you're clearly just ignorant. In the case of climate change, a lot of people are apathetic because of the time scales involved -- they don't know much about it, it seems distant, it seems abstract, etc. I consider all of that a kind of ignorance. Which is probably excusing them, given how dire the situation has become.
Quoting AmadeusD
Which is why I've said repeatedly that you're ignorant. That's not accusing you of psychopathy. You want to insist that it's psychopathy, and then try to weasel out of it through undergraduate moral philosophy, in an attempt to avoid the work of learning about climate change and its consequences.
So let's talk about the consequences of climate change, shall we? Perhaps that's the best route. Let's look at the effects of ice caps melting or sea level rise or Amazon rainforest destruction or tipping points. All of it is easy to dismiss or ignore, so one can continue one's apathy, but once seen and understood it'll change your perspective I think. It changed mine -- as did learning about nuclear weapons. It's worth learning about, for no other reason then it's an existential threat.
Quoting AmadeusD
:lol:
This is why most people shouldn't "study" philosophy.
No, it's not my "position" that a person who cares about others wouldn't want to do nothing as others burn. That's logic.
Quoting AmadeusD
Antinatalism is nihilism, through and through. Well disguised, I grant you.
In any case, to use this as justification for doing nothing while others burn is pretty ridiculous.
Quoting AmadeusD
Actually it's very much correlative. See my point earlier about people struggling with climate change because of its abstractness and apparent distance. But we're all culpable, especially those of us living in wealthy countries.
Quoting AmadeusD
It is. Which is why you want to avoid the drowning child example. I suppose letting her drown instead of acting isn't psychopathy or ignorance but...what, antinatalism?
In the case of climate disaster, we either see what's happening and, if we care about people, both care about and act accordingly -- or we don't see what's happening, or at least don't fully understand the consequences of inaction. It's not more complicated than that. You may very well have some psychological disorder, but based on what you've said so far I think it's much more clear you're just ignorant.
Answer me this: What do you think will happen if we do nothing about rising emissions? If we allow emissions to rise unabated, burning as much coal, oil, and gas as we want? Do you think it'll have any impact at all? For better or worse? And why do you believe it?
Quoting AmadeusD
No, it's what you want me to be doing because you don't know anything about the science. Hence you have to continually pull the discussion into feelings and intuitions, where you have a shot at bullshitting your way through. I'm not interested in that. The facts are pretty clear, and they're worth learning about:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/
Hey guys, take it to Marriage Guidance, and leave this space for the discussion of climate change, huh?
Suffice to say I cannot understand how it is even possible, without what I've asserted, that you're appealing to feelings to support your position - whcih is exactly what you've done. However, the below... So, adieu :)
Quoting unenlightened
Fair; hahahaha
:up: :up:
At risk of this being another round of redundant talking past each other... (so, forgive if i bow out quickly. I can see it's not the best use of time if that does occur)
Quoting Vaskane
Do you not see Mikie calling someone a buffoon as an emotional reaction? Because to me it is one without doubt, and if you do not agree we have no further to discuss. The premises we're on aren't the same. I could accept my response is emotional in the sense that it irked me that Mikie is so intensely convinced of his moral correctness, yes treats others with moral disregard. Noticing things is naturally an emotional process.
So, from my perspective, to deny that would be a patent disregard for the facts of the matter. It is a personal attack, not an attack on the argument. Though, I note it doesn't reach the ad hominem level. I guess this just isn't an issue. Pretending his response was not emotional, but my noting it was, is incoherent.
Quoting Vaskane
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Based on only the comments that have been addressed, his position isn't one on the science. It's one on the moral status of the facts of the matter (given you both are saying his 'facts of hte matter' are counter to science, I defer, but it's not all that relevant as I never addressed that in any way whatsoever and so responding to it misses me completely). The comments i've addressed could well be in light of accepting the entire mainstream position, including recommendations on combatting CC. If that's not his intention, sure, but this just further supports my intuition that Mikie's responses are confused emotional comments about something I never claimed or addressed.
I simply said calling someone a buffoon might not be hte best idea. It isn't. Clearly.
Quoting Vaskane
That is exactly not what I did. My entire position rests on change being neither good nor bad without an arbitrary framework to measure it against(and I refrain from choosing one, basically. Could be A-moral i guess). If that isn't clear, I apologise, but i'm unable to formulate a version of what I've said earlier more clearly if that is the case. A failing on my part. But, regardless of that failing, it is entirely counter to reality to pretend I'm making any kind of moral argument about climate change.
Quoting Vaskane
At no stage did I even tangentially intimate that I was anywhere near denying any of the science around anthropocentric climate change. I actually actively acknowledge it, and my, let's say trust, in it, multiple times. I also observed Mikie's position as admirable. I actually called the situation a crisis at one point. If that doesn't indicate an emotional state that is in line with Mikie's, im unsure what would. I simply reject his moral position and find nothing convincing in his warblings about it.
Further, and contrary to your assertion, Mikie was, in fact, arguing that for me to hold the position I hold, i must be suffering some kind of defect of humanity (his initial formulation was to charge me with psychopathy. Laughable in many ways, not worth addressing further. I've dealt with it). So, at-base I'm unsure where this is relevant, unless you're (maybe accidentally) actually responding to Kasperanza. Though, in that case, I suppose i can ignore it. He may well have been saying untrue, or misleading, or wilfully ignorant things ( in fact, i would agree, it's just not relevant)
Just more fluff and feelings. If you’re not interested in the science, your gripes about how someone else communicates is boring and irrelevant. Take it somewhere else.
The irony burns.
Hi again Vaskane,
It seems you're under a false impession about my part in this exchange. Very well may be my doing, though so i apologise - and i will note that as i go. But it is entirely wrong to say that I care much at all about the 'buffoon' issue. It is minor, uninteresting and a passing comment in my initial response. You might see my response as emotional - sure - but it was mild, and in passing.
What is substantive, and on which, Mikie and I actually exchanged, is the moral valence of caring, or not caring (to different degrees, i can assume) about the climate crisis (and nominally, what to do about it).
I disagree that not caring is objectively immoral. Mikie thinks it is. That's the disagreement. It is not emotional. It is not unreasonable. It is simply a matter of my subjective position vs his attempt to make it objectively immoral... about whether "I don't really care about climate change" is a statement illustrating immorality. I disagree, he appears to think it does, regardless of any potential objections. So, up front, I want to make that extremely clear. I don't give a monkey's about any ongoing discussion to do with 'buffoon' in this thread. It was a throwaway comment, though one I agree with still.
Quoting Vaskane
Fair enough, certainly can't argue with this; totally reasonable. As noted, it didn't reach ad hominem - but I didn't attempt to claim it was a fallacy or ad hominem. I merely suggested it would be better not to. Which I, subjectively, think is the case. That's all I'll say about this.
Quoting Vaskane
Hmm... I readily (even in the comment you're responding to) agreed. Unsure if you've missed that this was not the subject of our exchange(as outline in my preamble), from my perspective, and as I tried to point out multiple times. If i failed, that's on me. But let this be clarity there, in any case.
Quoting Vaskane
Hmm, fair enough in the face of taking that 'buffoon' element of the exchange as major I have no problem with that; you're more than welcome to hold that view with no objection for me... But, because to me it was extremely minor, I have no idea why you're/he are fixated on the way I communicated about his emotional response. Seems hypocritical (and ironic, considering Mikie's last little bit of immature nonsense just there is exactly a gripe about communication, while accusing me of same...wild). But that said, it also doesn't bother me, just seems odd.
The substantive exchange, and the 'gripe', for my part was directly related to his (in my view) asserting my moral response to (the established facts of) Climate Change have a definite, inarguable moral value in the negative. The 'buffoon' disagreement was very much secondary and unimportant to my mind. If it didn't come across that way, again, apologies for not achieving enough clarity.
Quoting Vaskane
Its not at all like that to my mind, but taking it as an analogy, sure. Still, there is no moral content in either that reaction, or an extremely cautious one. Those just are the two reactions we've chosen to discuss. Mikie thinks otherwise. That's the conflict.
Quoting Vaskane
Yes, he 100% is. He requires me to be defective, if not immoral, to hold my position. That is absolutely a judgement on right and wrong, moral or immoral. And by his lights, its inarguable. Ha...ha?
I'm not engaging with a complete ignorance of that fact (assuming you've read the exchange). Otherwise, thank you for a rather pleasant exchange.
Some people just need to scream abusively at someone else. It doesn't really matter why. I guess that could be analyzed out as having to do with self-righteousness, but it's more likely that they received that kind of abuse in childhood and it's now cycling. The drama is hidden. All you see is the screaming.
I agree. But that isn't his position. Which was my point. But it seems we more or less agree on what's actually happened.
:up: Glad someone understands. :wink:
—NASA
But don’t worry, you can still know all this and not care— because some dude read something about the fact/value dichotomy in freshman philosophy class. So no judgment allowed.
It is now patently clear you’re communicating in bad faith.
Take care buddy.
On another note, Taylor Swift is coming to New Zealand next month.
The Science™!
As a point of curiosity, do you know the difference between a superheated vapour and a saturated vapour?
At the boiling point the saturation point becomes 100%, and above that point the vapour is superheated. (From ancient memory. You might want to check and correct a bit.) It is the result of the wretched internet, that implied adhoms are the first recourse of the wilfully ignorant.
There is a an important psychological aspect to climate change, that it demands a huge transformation in ones fundamental understanding of oneself, of humanity, of society and economics, and a change of direction away from endless growth that threatens ones' identity like no other issue. Denial is commonplace, and particularly denial that anything is happening that will radically change the way of life of the human world.
The acceptance of this as fact, involves first a shock and fear, and then a great mourning of the loss of a way of life and an imagined future. No more green and pleasant land, no more 2 .4 children, no more universal foreign holidays, the end of accumulation and consumption without limit. So of course the people who point this out become targets because shooting the messenger always works. This whole thing is @Mikie's fault, because he is insisting on things we don't want to be true.
When I was growing up, a government leaflet was sent to every household in the UK to explain what to do in a Nuclear war. Something about putting tape on the windows and hiding under the table with a bottle of water. We just hoped no one would press the button. But Climate change is not optional, we have already pressed the button, been pressing it for a Century and are knowingly keeping it fully pressed and even pressing harder. This is the despair behind the denial. This is the self-hatred that becomes hated of the World. This is wishing Gaza on the whole of humanity.
I don't really have time for an argument any more, this world is going to collapse, it is already collapsing, and no orange clown is going to save us. The great god Science has pronounced our doom, and your faith or lack of faith changes nothing.
[quote=Grateful Dead]The bottles stand as empty
As they were filled before
Time there was and plenty
But from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all
I still might warn a few
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools[/quote]
When was the last time you heard anyone talk about pesticides causing Parkinson's disease in increasingly younger people?
Quoting Tzeentch
:lol: Case in point.
Do you think it's a hoax?
Putting people in the intellectual foetal position by convincing them the world is ending smells of grift to me, though. And I have no doubt certain uncouth agendas have inserted themselves into the climate debate.
Definitely.
Quoting unenlightened
If this isn't pseudo-religious hooey, I don't know what is.
It takes a lot of work, and years of libertarian “thinking,” to look at something like this and conclude “it smells of grift to me.”
Ah, so a guy on the internet saying something you don’t like makes for climate science being a “grift.” Got it.
I don’t like a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, or how he says it. Zoology is a grift.
Way to project your ignorance. Well done. Please go on telling everyone about the “climate grift.”
It's psychobabble Jim, not pseudo-religious hooey, and definitely not grift.
And the scattergun adhom epithets you are using are exactly what it explains. You have to defend your way of life. But you'll come around, or die in denial, I don't much care which.
Gotcha.
Quoting unenlightened
No, I wasn't calling you a grifter. But if you're genuinely under the impression the world is about to end, you've fallen victim to a grift.
"They" the media? choose a child because that makes it more believable?
Rather than - a grown up climate scientist or someone like that.
That totally makes money! Absolutely classic!
___________________________________________________________
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not. I'm under the impression that most of the world's mega cities are coastal and low-lying and will therefore be subject to major flooding within a century and in some cases within a couple of decades. The millions of resulting climate refugees will overwhelm the ability of governments to cope and a breakdown of civil society will almost certainly result. This will be exacerbated by a continuing decline in global food production, desertification and the added involuntary mass migrations that will result. Not the end of the world, just the end of your world. And it will not stop there, but continue to get worse.
It's been making excellent click bait for thousands of years. 'Course one of these days they're going to be right. :grin:
It's kind of weak though isn't it? We know that Oil companies and oil exporting countries have been spending a great deal of effort and money undermining any suggestion that there is a climate crisis. So where are all these successful doom laden grifters making their money from? It's a fantasy - there is no market for them or their doom, because the market has long been cornered by the apocalypse and rapture brigade. Mundane flood and famine is boring.
I believe, on the account that it's somehow a 'grift', the market consists in academia, media appearances and global climate summits.
I don't think that's the case, beyond a handful of cynical wankers, to be clear. That said, I have say, this seems self-evident:
Quoting Tzeentch
But i don't think denialism is a legitimate reaction (or even some kind of 'truth wrapped in a lie' take). I think, per a couple of other comments, its worth noting (entirely aside from the facts of the matter, which Mikie so aptly re-presents), there is inarguably a psycho-social element to the entire situation whereby some can fall into a pattern of behaviour around their beliefs which is satisfying in itself viz. othering those who don't either react the same way, or deny the facts. Both seem to me extremely unhelpful from either hte psychological or the physical facts angle. Group-think doesn't necessarily skew the facts, or at least not only the facts but the emotions too.
Yes. Why would a climate apocalypse unfolding before our very eyes need to be "made more believable"?
Besides, children don't make things believable. Only a fool would listen to a child on a topic like this. The choice of a child was deliberate, because people don't like to criticize children. And grifters don't like criticism.
Further, fearmongering and targeting children is a deliberate and grifty tactic.
Quoting unenlightened
I think you know little of my world, but don't you think this is a bit ironic considering the tone you've chosen?
This also seems inarguable. More people have turned to denialism and wholesale derision as a result of Greta's presence. I think it's been a detriment.
If the topic is: the world's about to end, then denialism is fine. If it's: if you buy this type of lawnmower, you're being eco-friendly, then denialism is fine. If the topic is: anthropogenic climate change, then denialism is just ignorance of the facts.
I agree. She's a sideshow.
The latter-most seems to include the former-most, to those like Mikie. The facts of the matter entail the impending end of the world (as least in some sense). His position (and others like him) seems to be that the facts of the matter infer that denying the impending end of the world can only be the result of ignorance (or, i guess, more importantly to them, inaction)
The world is going to end in some sense no matter what we do. But toward the beginning of the thread Mikie warned that the earth will soon have a climate similar to that on Venus. I wouldn't listen to anything he has to say, tbh.
Right; I guess it's the idea that we've got >100 years to go that's a hard sell.
It's not likely that humans will become extinct due to climate change. Could the present global system fall due to climate change? Sure. When exactly? Don't know. It will be the third large scale collapse since humans invented civilization.
Exxon’s own scientists knew what was happening in the late 70s, and as has now been exhaustively documented, this was deliberately minimized and the scientists fired in favor of hiring the same “merchants of doubt” that tobacco companies used to sow doubt about smoking and lung cancer.
Massive propaganda from the fossil fuel industry for decades. But it’s the climate scientists that are the “grifters.” And graphs are “esotheric knowledge.”
I guess the latest tactic of climate denialists is to build a new strawman: “Well we agree on the facts, but we just don’t believe the WORLD WILL END.” You saw a lot of this on Fox News a few years back claiming that AOC et al. were saying “we have 12 years before the world explodes.” Just more nonsense.
Same things being used here. It’s the only way people with no understanding of an issue can avoid any real substance (or work) and still feel like they’re contributing to the conversation somehow. The thread has been great in this respect — it’s like an intellectual fly trap. Makes it much easier to ignore various posters on every other topic once they show their hand on this one.
Remember the calls for reducing nuclear weapons? Yeah — a grift. Because nuclear war never happened— and besides, it wouldn’t have been the END OF THE WORLD. A few people would probably survive. Check and mate.
This is, in no sense whatsoever, a strawman. It's definitely a weak position for those who initially denied the facts, though but it an entirely legitimate position that allows for much action and seriousness, without taking and overwhelmingly cynical position of claiming the world is literally ending.
But on AOC, i'm not quite sure if you're trying to deny she said it, and in any case, it was glib, but here is the quote:
"Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'"
and climate scientists reacting: https://www.axios.com/2019/01/22/climate-change-scientists-comment-ocasio-cortez-12-year-deadline
It is absolutely inarguable there is a degree of fantasist alarmism on that side of the issue, politically. AOC likening the CC to WWII is another rather bizarre example.
Quoting Mikie
Once again showing in how-bad-of-faith you deal with people.
It is— and it’s been used for a long time. Hence why the term climate “alarmism” was invented and repeated ad nauseam within the conservative media bubble. Glad I used the example of AOC — I see you got sucked into that as well.
It’s such a stupid point that I barely give it attention anymore. I treat it the same way I would read the buffoons (forgive the accuracy) who claim nuclear war wouldn’t count as “existential” because people could potentially survive in some underground bunker. Nah, I’ll keep using “existential threat.” But thanks anyway.
Just more denialism, in the end. They call it “delayism” now— but it’s all just denialism to me.
—
Just to take it out of the realm of chit-chat, where any imbecile can participate:
That should be concerning.
:yawn:
It isn't.
Quoting Mikie
I gave you the quote, and an independent response to it. Are you like... ok?
Quoting Mikie
Yet further entrenching the obvious fact that you are not communicating in good faith.
Quoting Mikie
This isn't really a coherent thought experiment, but even reading in to it what you must mean, no one is doing that.
The evidence doesn't result in the world ending in 12 years. That's what's been discussed. Please, please try not to make things up that other people think or say to argue with. I stopped using twitter to get away from that.
I think the bolded is about as close to that meme of the dude crying behind his mask as i've seen on this forum.
And apparently didn't even read it. Try doing so.
Quoting AmadeusD
...
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Deleted user
Quoting Tzeentch
Are you ok?
Quoting AmadeusD
...
Quoting AmadeusD
But please, do go on lecturing others about how to communicate, and about "bad faith."
If you could please outline exactly how you deduced this, from my giving no notion of my view on either the quote, or the response, that would be nice. As far as i can tell, you have wholly invented a position on it/them, ascribed it to me, and then reacted to it. It is a fact that I didn't give mine, so .. logic dictates...
Quoting Mikie
Yeah, i'm totally fine. I'm just finding it really interesting trying to connect the non-existent dots you're connecting here.
Quoting Mikie
Your hyperbole knows no bounds.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Deleted user
Quoting Tzeentch
Again…You ok?
Whatever— I don’t really care. Be well.
Also worth repeating:
Over 100 years:
And over 800 thousand years:
— James Hansen, climate [s]scientist[/s] grifter
That much has been obvious for some time. Not understanding other people's perspectives makes it very, very hard to care.
Well this has been adequately bizarre to finish out the year. Nice.
This thread is about climate change. Move along.
Take this grifter, for example:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/06/intolerable-tide-people-displaced-climate-change-un-expert
Clearly angling for more research grants. None of that is happening.
• irrelevant, there's no climate change
• there's climate change, and it has nothing to do with humans
• there's climate change, and it won't affect humans
• there's anthropogenic climate change, and nothing can done
• whatever the case, risk assessments are required before anything else (best-case, worst-case)
• there's climate change, and we know too little, need more conclusive research before anything else
• there's climate change, and whatever can be done should be done for the sake of future humans
• a far-reaching revolution is required immediately to deal with climate change
• mankind is doomed, deal with it, and go on about your business
• climate scientists/activists = grifters
Something else or some combination?
It's too easy/cheap to point at some isolated thing or peddle/suggest conspiracy theories. I'm fairly sure some of those sentiments above can be binned, and others not so much.
[sup]Related: human "footprints" all over (roads, cities, farms, factories, wars, waste), impressive (post-)industrialization fossil burnage, pollution all over the place, population growth, anthropogenic resource deprivation, biodiversity impairment, extinctions, nature/wildlife displacement, deforestation, renewability, ...[/sup]
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, "they" ("them", "the secret behind-the-scenes conspirators") deliberately chose her while "hiding in the shadows", due to their "ulterior motives". :D A vast conspiracy, at that. The ? comments are just another example of ad hominem in service of incorrigible faith.
EDIT: apparently forgot one above: • climate scientists/activists = grifters
How does this not sound extremely grifty?
People have had to deal with the effects of all kinds of change for as long as humanity has existed, but now there are people in need for "long-lasting support" and this bozo needs your money.
Subsidizing people for living in unsustainable conditions is a terrible idea, and I have no doubt a large part of that money would disappear into the pockets of, you guessed it, grifters.
If two centimeters of sea-level rise means you and your family are washed away, maybe think about moving. In fact, maybe you should have thought about moving yesterday. But even so, those two centimeters will take a couple decades - there's still time!
Treating people like children and helpless victims; it's a funny tendency within modern societies and apparently also in supranational organisations. Maybe a form of subconscious savior complex?
Personally, I'm a bit more cynical, as you might have guessed. This is grifty language, used to manipulate and guilt-trip people, which sadly is all too common in these forms of charity.
I have to admit that you are into too many layers of irony for me to understand. Props where it is due.
Quoting Tzeentch
That much is evident, the dumb cattle would rather not have kids and buy electric cars (which make no difference) while millionaires stay and will stay on their private jets burning diesel. But when we comes to things that are killing us in real time, such as microplastics and hormones in food, they stay really quiet because it is not a topic covered by the BBC or New York Times. I say good, let artificial selection take its course.
The United Nations said in 1989 that the Earth would be underwater if we did not stop climate change by 2000, and yet the Netherlands (negative altitude) will still be afloat in 2024.
Also relevant: https://www.uah.edu/news/news/paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download
When there is no Ukraine, Israel, vaccine, or Iran hysteria to keep the people distracted from the issues of their country, you can always go back to climate hysteria.
My thoughts exactly. :pray:
No they didn’t.
Quoting Deleted user
No, it isn’t. Read up on both the article and the goofy Roy Spencer. Both guys are long known climate deniers.
Can’t denialists peddle anything new? Jeesh.
Yeah, No grifting involved at all there.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02112020/john-christy-alabama-climate-contrarian/
Exon Mobil lobbyists being unwavering seekers of truth and not at all partisan on such matters. He doesn't take their money, but he sure takes their lobbying on his behalf. but the reference has been very well trashed in any case over the years.
Why do you think microplastics are killing us?
We know that the oil industry has been doing the same thing over climate change.
Yet here is a bunch of clowns pretending that there is a conspiracy of climate scientists and windmill manufacturers. They use words like "grifter" without identifying any actual case, cast doubt on the sanity of their interlocutors, make vague accusations of religiosity with no foundation, and then come up with Dr John Christy for fucks sake, ex missionary turned climate denier, supported by big oil, Trump's darling, and present him as legitimate mainstream science. And I am the one that is Quoting Deleted user
Because having plastic in our system is not healthy? Microplastics are painting an apocalyptic future more than any +1 degree Celsius climate shift. The climate can be fixed, microplastics cannot ever.
This is what I mean. Otherwise normal adults regress to the intellectual level of maybe an 8 or 9v year old when they hit this topic. And it’s an easy one to look at, because the evidence is overwhelming (and why the consensus is so high).
So it’s fun to see. You get either complete ignorance or conspiracy theories (also just ignorance) repeated from conservative circles — ie talking heads who are themselves parroting talking points from fossil industry lawyers and think tanks.
So it’s a hoax, a grift, an agenda, a scam, a religion. Climate scientists are alarmists, dogmatists, zealots. Funny so much quasi-religious accusations get thrown about when so much of this comes from evangelicals, who themselves are largely young-earth creationists.
Sorry, I don't accept "epicclimatenews" as a source for someone "burnishing their scientific credentials", which is not something that happens because science is not a clergy, there is no one to be burn at a stake.
But keep pulling your hair for something out of your control because the news told you the world is ending. It is hilarious.
As an observation, everytime you mention Trump or Biden I skip over to the next paragraph. I do not care about your largely irrelevant "country".
It’s not ending. But keep repeating your news that tells you it doesn’t exist. Much better strategy.
Care to trot out Fred Singer next, as a “relevant” source? :lol:
Better to scurry away like the many deniers before you. Save yourself the further embarrassment.
Quoting Deleted user
Microplastics are a grift. You’re an alarmist.
What are you denying about Dr John Christy? That the research has been widely questioned? That it is a minority view among climate scientists? That ExonMobil lobbied on his behalf? That he used to be a missionary? Your blanket rejection is of no value without some reason and evidence.
There are all kinds of indwelling plastic medical devices. Plastic is ok. Your approach is kind of lacking in justification.
That has little to do with inhaled or ingested plastics that are liable I imagine to clog things up and reduce absorption of oxygen and food respectively. but there's not a huge amount of research and a good deal of complacency. Just another uncontrolled experiment with the biosphere.
here's a summary: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/microplastics-long-legacy-left-behind-plastic-pollution
It's another unwanted pressure on an already critically stressed biosphere - not to mention the hormones that are an ever-present threat to the masculinity of the pure in cell.
Yes. Entities that do medical research take suggestions from the public, and I asked for that one: the effect of microplastics on the lungs.
I did a quick search in NY Times. Dozens of articles or opinion pieces on microplastics. Here's one I did not bother checking BBC, but I'm confident that you will find plenty as well.
It's a race to see how mankind will destroy this habitable planet we live on. Pollution vs. habitat destruction vs. climate change. Any one of these will be sufficient. My vote is on a combination.
This is false. The NY Times is always banging on about microplastics, as in this Opinion essay earlier in the year: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/opinion/microplastics-health-environment.html
Hormones in food is more of a BBC thing. https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/junk_food_brain
Quoting Deleted user
The article to which you linked explained that one non-scientist official said something like this, but it's a popular misconception that he said or even implied that the underwater events would happen 'by 2000', and the predicted underwater events would affect very specific places, like Bangladesh.
Never. That is because the climate change doom cult is full of shit. And if they did actually talk about it, they would no doubt blame it on climate change so as to incite more alarmism.
Hi Lionino. I would like to know where the 2 US temperature maps for Jul 20 2019 came from.
The scale has obviously changed, so how did you get the 2 maps for the same date using the 2 different temperature scales?
See here, where temperatures close to 0 are a nice bright green while temperatures under 30 display a hellish red.
Source https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/11/02/election-day-2020-forecast-favorable-weather-likely-across-the-nation
"Why should I care about what happens to other people in other places and times, such as after I am no longer alive?"
The problem of climate denial is with a system of individual libertarian mindedness, not any special content of scientific evidence. Evidence actually tends to exacerbate it through its individualistic apparatus and the Cartesian-Augustinian subject, where deniers and pushers represent the same ideological form. At present it seems persuasion is of social, representational, and psychological expense rather than to do with anything of the natural world.
Their message seems to be: "If the problem comes down to individual action, information, and knowledge, then why should I care?" In my view, it seems a reflection of two different materialistic interpretations of Kant vs Hegel in the realm of morality.
Great post. The question you point to is a philosophical challenge covered by global warming text books. The issue is that we don't have any experience with "caring" on the temporal and geographical scale of climate change.
That is because it is not something that is experienced. It is an "idea". And there is no moral imperative to believe or agree with an idea. If an idea cannot compel assent on the weight of its own merit but requires coercion and ridicule to enforce, there is an obvious problem with the idea, and a bigger problem with the people that want to impose ideology upon others.
"Why should I?" is the devil's question. If someone doesn't care about other people, they don't care what other people say. So there is no answer worth giving.
Humanity as a whole stands in judgement of itself, and it looks like our judgement is that we might as well die in our own shit. So it goes. I am rather sad about this, to the extent that I sometimes hide it in anger. Both equally futile reactions.
But I do wonder, if people really don't care about others, why they bother to come here and argue about all this, back and forth? It's almost as if they are trying to convince themselves that they don't care, rather than just berate those of us that do care a little.
Attempts to frame it as such is simply a transparent attempt at claiming a moral high ground by smearing the other side as being selfish and immoral. It's intellectual poverty.
Read what you wrote as if you were talking about money. Money is a successful social technology. So is the legal apparatus that allows us to do rule of law. We just don't have any social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years.
Exactly.
That's not entirely true. By and large, democratic governments cannot afford to look very seriously beyond the next election, but not everything is democratically controlled. The notion of aristocracy, on the other hand, unfashionable as it is, does rely on long-termism. Noblesse oblige. Thus in medieval times, multi generational projects like the construction of cathedrals were possible. The sense of lineage gives one a longer view that allows one to plant broadleaf woodland that will come to maturity in a couple of centuries, because there is a genuine feeling that one is not the owner, but the custodian of one's property. This might make sense to a Native American sensibility, but I suspect is entirely foreign to US culture.
I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the skepticism expressed in this thread at all.
True.
Of course you don't. But if you look, you will find that climate science has been accused of "grift" of regiousity, of ... oh never mind, I cannot be bothered with fending off your projections any more.
So calling people grifters is not taking the moral high ground? Literally, you will make any idiotic accusation not to engage with the rather serious threat to your own way of life. So it goes.
No, not really. Recognizing something is as a grift has nothing to do with morality.
:up: :up: :up:
There isn't any question at present in the Western scientific community about whether the greenhouse effect is a real phenomena. You can test this in your own backyard. The majority of esteemed universities around where I live offer full courses about the effects of it and the US, Canada, Europe, China, and India, have already pledged trillions of dollars towards solutions. If you still have doubts, you can easily express your concerns to a professor and not a philosopher. If you win that argument, then you can approach ordinary citizens here with your scientific proof. However, it being scientific knowledge doesn't automatically mean it's true. After all, the sun revolving around the earth was previously common held as science. But conversely, it is a common logical error to think proving something is untrue proves its opposite to be true.
Energy is also a social technology that is a real experience for people. People depend on it as much as money and law. It is ridiculous that people are willing to experiment with this highly impractical social technology for orchestrating events beyond about a hundred years at the cost of crippling our capacity for producing cheap avaliable energy in the present. "That the wise men should gaze up at the sun and moon and yet fail to see what lies beneath their feet." (Diogenes)
Im sure it will be really nice when Western countries become dependent on the coal power of countries like China and India to fuel their unproven green energy infrastructures.
:nerd: :nerd: :nerd: "Eeeerm- I just fact checked this on Cheeseburgersville's grandmas Facebook group and actually there is this one little article by the PolyAmoryNews talking about microplastics"
It does not matter. Microplastics are not nearly talked about as much as the climate. That is what I said, and it is a fact.
Quoting mcdoodle
I did not say that. You are just "debunking" an opinion that was never stated.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting unenlightened
Yes. We are probably more chimp than bonobo, and on top of that we inherit trauma from the traumatised of the previous generation. And as I have already said and others have also attested, it is a difficult process just to come to terms with the personal and cultural loss we are facing. And of course I sound like some modern Jeremiah because on a smaller scale, societies have had to face such calamities many times, and folk have each time divided between the doom merchants and the sceptics.
I am not expecting much happiness.
I am expecting over the next couple of centuries a sea level rise of 10 - 50 metres submerging most of the major cities and a huge percentage of the world's arable land. Add in the mass extinction caused by a climate change too rapid for environments to adapt, and the usual human instinct to blame Johnny Foreigner for their problems, and happy bunnies are going to be thin on what's left of the ground.
Denial is a normal psychological response - 'The Titanic is unsinkable, tell the band to keep playing.' One might hope that philosophers were in a position more to face reality, and start to think about the most meaningful way to respond to the situation. But here it seems that name calling and ridicule is about all they can manage. *shrug*.
But happy Christmas everyone.
While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when such progress is so desperately needed — notably, trying to moderate manmade global warming thus extreme weather events.
Although societal awareness of and concern over man-caused global warming is gradually increasing, collective human existence is still basically analogous to a cafeteria lineup consisting of diversely societally represented people, all adamantly arguing over which identifiable person should be at the front and, conversely, at the back of the line.
Many of them further fight over to whom amongst them should go the last piece of quality pie and how much they should have to pay for it — all the while the interstellar spaceship on which they’re all permanently confined, owned and operated by (besides the wealthiest passengers) the fossil fuel industry, is on fire and toxifying at locations not normally investigated.
And if the universal availability of green-energy alternatives will come at the profit-margin expense of traditional 'energy' production companies, one can expect formidable obstacles, including the political and regulatory sort. If it conflicts with big-profit interests, even very progressive motions are greatly resisted, often enough successfully.
As a species, we can be so heavily preoccupied with our own individual little worlds, however overwhelming to us, that we will miss the biggest of crucial pictures. And it seems this distinct form of societal penny-wisdom but pound-foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.
You are ruining your life worrying about something that might never happen. Even if it happens it will be long after you are dead.
Quoting Michael Crichton
No I'm not. I am not worried. I will be dead, indeed before very long, but I do not make my life a misery by imagining that my life has any great importance. That would be rather foolish considering how very fragile and impermanent an individual human is.
Prediction is indeed difficult, but if scientists were to predict with increasing certainty over some time that a large asteroid was going to hit your state and nothing could be done now because it was too late to divert it, you might be inclined to take a holiday somewhere far away, rather than arguing with complex calculations.
I am giving you my best guess based on the consensus of model predictions augmented by proposed explanations of why these models have proved so far to be underestimating the effects of climate disruption.
Quoting Michael Crichton
Of course. Yet every purposeful act is future directed and functions in exactly that way. In crossing the road, one waits for a gap in the traffic and hopes there is not an invisible car there. One eats a burger and relies on the fact that so far one's burgers have not been too poisonous. Everybody who gives it a moment's thought knows that predictions are the best one can do in preparing for the future, and that though the weather forecast is sometimes badly, wrong, and always wrong to some degree, it is still worth attending to, and preparing for.
If you can't do that yourself, why are you asking someone else to do it?
“It’s a hundred years from now! Models are always wrong!”
Except this was known over a hundred years ago. Eh, denial runs deep.
Some things are easier to predict than others. The path of an asteroid hurtling through space is relatively easy to predict. There are not many factors affecting its motion.
Predicting what will happen to the earth is much more complicated. We don't have complete knowledge of its history and the accurate data that we have is from a relatively short time period. There are many more factors affecting it, and some of those factors involve human choices (individual and group decisions).
Committing to a major change to the way that humans live is a risky experiment (as is continuing to use fossil fuels). People like Mikie concentrate on the risks of continuing to use fossil fuels, but choose to ignore the risks and problems that might be caused by moving away from fossil fuels. A more balanced view would be better.
800 thousand years isn’t short.
Latest analysis of monthly averages:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/26/climate/global-warming-accelerating.html
So hard to predict what will happen in the future! Despite the fact that this was indeed predicted — decades ago. And understood over 100 years ago.
Asteroid hurtling towards earth. Those in denial: “You have failed to consider the risks of PREVENTING the asteroid from hitting us!”
Yeah life is a risky game. I wouldn't play it if I had the choice.
But your suggestion seems to be to ignore the best prediction we have and all the evidence we have, in favour of some unimagined factor that will work in our favour rather than making things even worse. I call that wishful thinking.
The increased availability of standardized thermometers and the growth of climate data collection networks in the 19th century further contributed to the widespread use of thermometers for monitoring and studying climate.
NOAA and NASA satellites started collecting data on global temperatures in late November 1978, about 45 years of data.
Ice cores come from only a few places on the earth which are very cold. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.
Why is there a pattern of regular interglacials about every 100,000 years. The current interglacial fits that pattern. From your graphs the current interglacial appears to have plateaued, and it is at a temperature less than the previous interglacial.
Our knowledge is not complete or precise. Predictions are made from climate models which are based on various assumptions. Different models give different results, so they "average" them. If you average many incorrect results you probably won't get the correct result.
It is compared to 4.5 billion years. What does the data say about the other 4,499,200,000 years the earth has existed?
What accounts for that?
You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about. But that tracks with literally everything else you’ve posted.
Anyway: (1) 800 thousand years isn’t short, and the data is accurate indeed. (2) We’re warming at an alarming rate, and we know why (greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation). Nothing to do with “models.”
The “models” you do speak of have been remarkably accurate. What they’ve done is underestimated the warming, however.
Also, this isn’t normal:
If you can’t see why this would be troubling to climate scientists, you’re practically illiterate. Or going out of your way to find reasons for denial. We all know you’re a climate denier— but maybe there’s something to the illiteracy part too— I can’t be certain.
milankovitch cycle?
Are you suggesting that there may be causal factors beyond the human?
For climate change? Of course. The climate has been changing since there's been a climate.
Yes, for climate change. Why do you think current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
Basically a shit ton of computer modelling by a shit ton of scientists all over the world. It's called the IPCC.
And what is the IPCC explanation for why the current climate change is being blamed on human industrialization when the same pattern has occurred many times prior to the modern age?
I don't know what you mean by "the same pattern." We're in a interglacial period. The glacial periods are the dips.
I'm going off 's graph:
That graph covers 800,000 years in 4 inches. You're just a tiny speck at the end.
Nevertheless, it shows an obvious pattern. Don't play dumb.
Yes.
So then, what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of that pattern in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?
It's partly the earth's axial wobble, and partly the way the earth's orbit changes from circular to elliptical. I haven't read a book about the climate in a couple of years, and that's long enough to get out of date. So, don't take my word. Look it up.
From the looks of it, climate change is far from being human caused. From what you have told me, it seems like it has more to do with axial wobbles and solar cycles than human activity.
Despite your display of supremacy, the question remains:
According to @Mikie's graph- what explanation does IPCC give us for the occurrence of the pattern of climate change over the past 800,000 years (which the current trend fits into perfectly on time), in which all prior events occurred in the absence of human industrialization and modernization?
I don't even know what you're asking, but I have a feeling you're going to ask again, in spite of the video. :grimace:
The IPCC attributes pre-industrial spikes in CO2 and temperature to natural factors such as volcanic activity, changes in solar radiation, and variations in Earth's orbit. These natural influences have historically played a role in climate change. However, the IPCC attributes the recent trend in climate change to human activity. The current trend of climate change fits perfectly into the prehistorical pattern of climate change, so why is it now attributed to human activity as opposed to natural causes as it is in every previous case?
Follow the money.
It also gives certain people the power to control other people.
I have to ask you: did you think the earth's climate had pretty much always been the way it is now?
I did not. And I never atttibuted any of the changes in the earth's climate to human activity. I'm just curious about why the pattern of climate change is attributed to natural causes in every instance except for the present one.
I asked because you keep saying the cycle from the 800,000 year graph is happening now. It's not. You're overlooking the massive difference in scale between the glacial/interglacial cycle versus the few centuries of anthropogenic climate change.
I'm just saying, when I first started looking into climate change it was because of a book I read about Egypt. If you read about ancient Egypt, you find out that during the last glacial period, the Sahara was a prairie, not a desert. There were people living there. The history of Egypt starts when the glacial period was finally finishing, but there were still big rivers and lakes where now, there's only desert. And all this is just looking at changes over the last 12,000 years.
The graph that shows the milankovitch cycle covers eight hundred thousand years. That's gigantic. Our species has only been around for maybe 300,000. It's kind of mind blowing to get the scale of geological time. I found it that way, anyway.
And the scale of geological time makes our current predictions of "human caused" climate change look like a political agenda when a regular guy cannot get a straight answer about why human activity has superseded natural causes as reason for climate change, despite any historical precedent. I expect no explanation or effort to convince me. We are all simply meant to accept what the great masters tell us.
Have you followed the oil industry money?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You could get the straight answer if you felt like reading a wikipedia article about it.
Interesting read. Gifted article.
I always find it interesting when people pretend to be intelligent but cannot find obvious answers to single issue questions. Performative stupidity is boring and doesn't serve any rhetorical point other than another reason to ignore you.
Merkwurdichliebe, please try to keep up.
Climate changes over most of the last 800,000 years were always due to natural causes. Humans had little or no influence.
But about 200 years ago natural causes of climate change became extinct (probably due to overhunting). Humans took on the role of controlling the climate and have made a total mess of it.
Over 4.5 billion years there have been many influences on climate. Obit wobbles are one. vulcanism is another continental drift is another, and life is another, The moon has receded from Earth over time so that tides have lessened, asteroids have had strong brief influence, the sun cycles are also important.
Over geological time, the sun's output has increased, however the long term effect of living organisms has been to lock up CO2 in the form of carbonates - limestones and chalk, which are the remains of shelled critters and the like, and oil and coal, the remains of ancient buried vegetation. This stuff has accumulated over the billions of years, some of it being recycled through subduction and vulcanism, and a lot just sitting there buried under layers of sediment.
So the overall effect of life locking carbon into the earths crust, has been enough to negate the increase in insolation. More or less. As i said all these other stuff has been going on as well and I'm not running a full course on climatology here.
The particular human effect has been twofold; firstly by various methods of exploitation pollution, farming fishing etc, to disrupt the ongoing processes of CO2 absorption of the living environment, and secondly and much more significantly, by extracting carbon in the form of coal and oil, and releasing it back into the atmosphere. This has never happened before. It has happened on a huge scale in a very very short time by geological standards. Current CO2 levels are at a level last seen when there was no ice at the N. pole or Greenland, and sea levels were about 50 m. (160 ft) higher than current levels, and global temperatures about 6°C. higher.
We are spending the carbon savings of the planet over billions of years at the rate of about half of the planet's total in a century and a half. And that is why it is humans on this occasion that are having a huge effect on the climate.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177
The handy graph there shows estimates of atmospheric CO2 for the last 66,000,000 yrs. The current level is about 417 ppm, a 50 % increase from preindustrial levels and last seen some 16 million years ago. This is a change way beyond the cycles shown on the ice core graphs shown many times on this thread. 16M, years ago, there was no ice on Greenland, and sea levels and average temperatures were much higher, as I mentioned above.
But we are headed for higher temperatures than that, because the suddenness of the change is causing a mass extinction and disruption to the environment, and we haven't even begun to reduce the rate of CO2 we are adding.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html
This is simply not true. The change in climate over last 150 years or so (since start of industrial age) do not fit into any known previous pattern and cannot be accounted for by any theory or hypothesis that involves natural processes only. When you factor in the additional C02 and CH4 the numbers work out.
This is the answer you were looking for:
Quoting EricH
Indeed.
How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Worth reading for the answer (Spoiler alert: they’ve been remarkably accurate in their predictions):
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
A big volcano in the S Pacific blew up this year. Volcanoes usually cool the climate (like during the 1990s), but this one is making it hotter because it's under water and it's blowing water vapor into the atmosphere.
“They.” Lol.
I’ve got an author right up your alley that can explain it to you:
Let me give you want you want so you can go back to sleep: it’s because “they” want to trip you up! Global warming wasn’t working for them, so they had to change their “brand” — to garner more influence and bring in more money!
Did they? I hadn't noticed.
Lol.
Ohh so it WAS a joke. I should have known you weren’t that stupid — my bad!
I don't think it changed. The word climate has been central to it the whole time, like from the 1980s onward?
Oh…you were serious.
No no, not stupid at all. You’re really on to something. Keep up the investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#References
Why not look into your confusions a bit before jumping for the nearest conspiracy theory?
So, for you it's all a matter of trust or lack of it, not a matter of exercising your critical intelligence?
I'm coming around to the whole grift theory. I think you're exactly right.
I agree, grift is a major part of it. Like all good scams there is a small element of truth involved.
Back then it was mostly statistical studies. Then after that period atmospheric physicists joined in and made it a real science.
I read that in the 1970s, climatology was described as a science of wild guesses. A huge amount of progress has been made, but there are still problems, like the cloud problem:
"In addition, climate models have difficulty incorporating certain information about clouds. Most climate models map features over areas of 100 kilometers by 100 kilometers, though some cloud models may have grids of five kilometers by five kilometers; but even within five kilometers there is a lot of variation in cloud cover. Allegra LeGrande, adjunct associate research scientist at Columbia Climate School’s Center for Climate Systems Research, said, “Sometimes there are processes that are just too small, too complicated, too hard to measure. And you just can’t explicitly include them in the climate models. These tend to be processes like the ephemeral, little wispiness of the clouds. How are you going to translate these tiny ephemeral cloud bits into a climate model of the whole world?”"
I agree.
A consensus amongst the forum climate-denying geniuses. Cool.
:up:
Ultimately I'm just taking scientists at their word, so yes trust is important. And over the last decade or so my trust in academia has eroded a great deal, with Covid being the nail on that coffin.
Deciding whether to trust climate scientists or not does use critical intelligence.
Listen to all these critical thinkers who, despite getting their silly armchair musings shot down over and over again regarding a subject one has to actually know something about before talking, still try to save face by retreating into vague generalities about how unthinking the masses are.
Perfection.
There’s nothing happening
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren’t even sure
Contradictory evidence:
It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
We don’t know why it’s happening
There’s no consensus:
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
The models don’t work:
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible:
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure:
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before:
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Greenland used to be green
Global warming is nothing new!
The hockey stick is broken
Vineland was full of grapes
It’s part of a natural change:
Current global warming is just part of a natural cycle
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says global warming is natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human emissions
The CO2 rise is natural
We are just recovering from the LIA
It’s not caused by CO2:
Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor
Water vapor accounts for almost all of the greenhouse effect
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
Mars and Pluto are warming too
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2’s importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It’s the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good:
What’s wrong with warmer weather?
Climate change can’t be stopped
It’s too late:
Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing
It’s someone else’s problem:
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto when China and India haven’t?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
It’s economically infeasible:
Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster
—
https://grist.org/climate/skeptics-2/
So true. :clap:
In the late 1950s we had virtually no computer access when I was a post-grad meteorology student at the U of Chicago. (In 1962 at the U of Alabama there was a giant computer filling the wall, floor, and ceiling that was an ordeal to use.)
We learned to classify cloud formations. In atmospheric physics we studied droplets.
How many degrees do you have, if I may ask?
The cloud problem is about modeling them for long term predictions. Clouds have a huge impact on the climate, but they aren't sure if future clouds will be more flat or more columnar.
I'm wondering if quantum computers would make it possible to model it?
Three, plus post-grad certification for the USAF (and USWB) 1958-59 as a meteorologist.
That's cool. Did you do weather reports for the Vietnam war?
As a captain in the reserves in the early 1960s, having done my obligation supporting ADC and SAC at a base near the Canadian border, I was asked to go active reserves (i.e., Vietnam) or resign my commission to make room for some other junior officer. I resigned my commission (being a math grad student at the time and married). But the USAF treated me very well while I was active.
:up:
People are not skeptical when they are told things that they want to believe are true.
People are not skeptical when they are told things that agree with their opinion.
If this is true, this is also true for you, so you have effectively said exactly nothing.
I have said something. I have made a statement that applies to most people. And yes, it also applies to people who are skeptical about climate-change/global-warming.
I have some ability of course. I live by the sea, and empirically I observe none of the supposedly world-shattering trends that people talk about. So I'm having to take someone else's word for it that there is in fact something going on.
True. Why haven't any of the beaches gotten smaller in the past 25 years from rising sea levels. I figured they would have closed many flooded beaches by this point.
It is. I have a cousin who bought a condo in the 90s when the beach was about a 100 feet away. Now high tide comes right up to their back door, and that's even with sand dredging. Without the dredging, I think the condo would be gone. Rich people get most of the benefit from dredging. Because of the way the coast works, when they dredge for rich people, poor towns lose more coast. It's something about how the currents work.
What makes it complicated is that this has actually been happening for about 150 years. There are civil war forts where most of the fort is now under water. You can't identify single incidents like this, or look at a single graph, or look at this year's weather and decide what the climate is doing. The climate is much bigger than this year, or even the last 150 years. This is why they use super computers to sort out all the billions of variables.
Yes, especially those who (understandably) want to believe climate change isn’t happening. There’s plenty of motivation there. I’d like to believe that too. I’d like to believe that nuclear weapons aren’t that destructive, etc.
So you’re describing yourself very well indeed.
:rofl:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/04/12/sea-level-rise-has-hit-southeast-us-hard-studies-say-whats-next/11637202002/#:~:text=Sea%20levels%20along%20coastlines%20from,assistant%20professor%20at%20Tulane%20University.
A 20-Foot Sea Wall? Miami Faces the Hard Choices of Climate Change
Insurers retreat from Coastal Virginia as climate risks soar
“If I don’t see it or know about it, it doesn’t exist.” Ignorance is bliss indeed.
https://www.wsj.com/science/environment/climate-change-us-economy-c9fbda96?mod=mhp
From the socialist bastion, Wall Street Journal.
Grift central!
Aren't the Netherlands already under water?
Yes, the Dutch have had to deal with water for centuries. I live by the coast myself, so when the deluge comes I'll be the first to know about it. :lol:
Ok. Send us telegram if you need buckets. :cool: