"We need Massive Change to avoid Climate Hell" Topic

"ON SUNDAY NIGHT, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped an urgent report on the state of global warming. Simply put: The laws of the physical universe say that we can keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the optimistic goal set out in the Paris Agreement, but we're quickly running out of time. As in, we may reach that 1.5 in as little as a dozen years at the rate we're spewing emissions. And the consequences will be disastrous.

To correct course and avoid 1.5 C, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, we'll need to cut emissions by half before 2030, and go carbon-neutral by 2050, the report says. That gives us three decades to transform our energy production into something unrecognizable, with renewable energy galore combined with carbon capture techniques like the bolstering of forests, and maybe even sucking the stuff out of the atmosphere and trapping it underground. We'll have to change our behavior as individuals, too. Meaning, we're looking at unprecedented change, what is essentially the restructuring of civilization…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Sigh…not this again.

To many people on the planet. Let's invade the third world with an army of sex robots to reduce the birth rate.

This all seems sound and reasonable and consistent with what we've been hearing. I'm left with a couple of questions…

#1 are the people who prepared this report still eating meat and driving cars?

#2 are we prepared to do what's necessary if any large nation doesn't make the necessary changes? It would only take one of the world's largest economies to do nothing to make saving the globe impossible. If we don't get sufficient voluntary changes, what's next?

#3 can we start a catalog of these predictions so we can keep track of them over time? Years ago we were told 350 ppm was the maximum safe level. Now we're at 410 and still climbing. I feel like the goal posts keep moving.

#4 if all these predictions are compelling we need extreme measures. Can we get the people issuing these various reports to be honest and say that hybrid cars and solar panels aren't going to do it and admit what we really need to do?

Speaking as someone who lives maybe ten feet about high tide, I'm very curious about these questions.

If they were serious there would be nuclear power plants goig up everywhere.

Instead they ship wood pellets from the US to the UK to burn instead of coal…

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

We've been down this road before………

YouTube link

Let's invade the third world with an army of sex robots……

I don't want to invade anyone, but I'll take a spare sex robot if anyone has one lying around.

What they really are saying is that you need to throw lots of money at this so that those in control can skim more off of the top.

You do know that this planet has been warmer in the past so while they are crying that we are all going to die (which is true) it will not be do to planet getting warmer which it might not be doing in the first place.

This all seems sound and reasonable and consistent with what we've been hearing. I'm left with a couple of questions…

#1 are the people who prepared this report still eating meat and driving cars?

#2 are we prepared to do what's necessary if any large nation doesn't make the necessary changes? It would only take one of the world's largest economies to do nothing to make saving the globe impossible. If we don't get sufficient voluntary changes, what's next?

#3 can we start a catalog of these predictions so we can keep track of them over time? Years ago we were told 350 ppm was the maximum safe level. Now we're at 410 and still climbing. I feel like the goal posts keep moving.

#4 if all these predictions are compelling we need extreme measures. Can we get the people issuing these various reports to be honest and say that hybrid cars and solar panels aren't going to do it and admit what we really need to do?

Speaking as someone who lives maybe ten feet about high tide, I'm very curious about these questions.

1) Mostly irrelevant. Individual level action is a drop in the bucket compared to societal-level interventions.

2) Who's up for invading and over throwing the US government? This has been the country that's been the biggest hold-up since Kyoto.

3) Here's the IPCC's previous reports going back to 1990: link

The results are remarkably stable.

As for 350ppm of CO2, we blew past that one in the early 90s. However it's still a benchmark that many see as worthy goal to strive for as a long-term atmospheric co2 target. Regardless, since global average temperature can hide large extremes within the average, the lower we cap CO2 emissions, the better for everyone.

4) To be honest there's 2 large camps within the science communication community with regards to climate change. One side advocates that any change to curb emissions (even if they're token changes in the large scheme of things) is worthwhile since it can reduce total emissions. The other side has been saying we're ed for some time,the time for action was in the 1990s since we've known the CO2's been a the main driver since then, and now it's simply of matter of damage control, and that the unwashed masses are too ignorant and easily distracted/brainwashed to act in their own good. Personally, I find myself as a little of column A and a little of column B. For example, while a am somewhat in favour of a Carbon Tax in principle, I find that the starting tariff are way too low (by at least 2 orders of magnitude) to properly compensate society for the harms that CO2 externalities cause to society. So do we spend political capital on an inadequate solution that, once in place, could be modified into a more adequate solution?

Because it sure as hell isn't the scientist that are running the political aspects of this debate. Here again, I show myself to be a bit of a squish in this issue, because I don't want to live in a world where every political decision is done by unanswerable technocrats. While that might have been my answer to everything when I was an high school, the previous 10 years of the financial crisis has disabused me of the value to a technocratic approach without democratic legitimacy.

My question to the deniers is "What if you are wrong?" What happens then?

Terry

Terry: "My question to the deniers is "What if you are wrong?" What happens then?"

Maybe both sides should ask themselves that question every once in a while, instead of being so dogmatic about what it is they believe and, most importantly, why they believe it.

And, for the record, I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. Many everyone who are unhappy with the selective nature of the evidence, and the forceful way it is being preached, are not deniers. Some would rather listen to both sides and do a little digging about what's really behind each and the, believe it or not, make up their own minds about the issue. :)

And the fact that this alarmist message is being (ab)used to enforce a globalist political agenda, and used to divide Western society along party lines, is even more reason to stop and look at the real motives behind all the panic-mongering, dramatic propaganda and the vicious ostracism* of anyone (including other members of the scientific community) who is not 100% on board. The odd source of much of the money that goes to the activist organizations that preach the message is also telling.

Categorically labeling everyone who is not keeping in step with the herd a "denier" does not help your point either. It's almost like the way used car salesmen pressure, label and guilt potential buyers into signing the dotted line right away, before they come to their senses and realize what is happening. All that does is make me suspicious.

Dan
* Some would say mafia-like threats to destroy careers and conduct social media character assassinations if they (scientists, celebrities, business owners, etc.) don't kiss the ring or bend the knee.

Maybe both sides should ask themselves that question every once in a while, instead of being so dogmatic about what it is they believe and, most importantly, why they believe it.

A better question is what is your threshold of proof to change your mind?

Me: Get me an explanation in which co2 isn't a driver of current climate change, yet explains the co2 signal in the palioclimate data.

And here are two reasoned responses to the hysterical ravings of the climate cultists:

link

link

Dave

You're using an article from the 'American Thinker' as your reasoned response!?! Please, give me a break. That website has posted almost as many 'one step away from tinfoil hats' stories as InfoWars.

"Many everyone who are unhappy with the selective nature of the evidence, and the forceful way it is being preached, are not deniers."

Oops.

I meant to delete that "everyone". Because, as I keep finding out more and more, some of the ones "who are unhappy with the selective nature of the evidence, and the forceful way it is being preached" are actual believers.

Apparently, for some people on both sides and those on the fence, the end does not justify the means. And that alone must really irk the heck out of the true lefties who want to maintain the illusion of overwhelming support – monolithic some claim – for their message and tactics. :)

Dan

But…no one has answered my question for climate skeptics and deniers. "What if you are wrong? What happens then?"

Terry

I look forward to a warmer world, one where the Northern USA, and Alaska and Canada and Russia are the breadbasket of the world. Things get cooler and they get hotter. Live with it. Adapt to change. I thought conservatives were the ones who were supposed to hate change? Apparently not.

I moved north to take advantage of global warming.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

When you can't dispute the facts, attack the source. Typical, so typical. AGW is founded in junk science.

My view on the Climate Change issue has always been that it DOESN'T MATTER if it is real or if human action is causing it, but we should ACT as if it is. Even without climate change, there are lots of other bad things about digging up and burning fossil fuels. Even without climate change there are lots of advantages to switching to renewable energy sources. And since the supply of fossil fuels is not unlimited, sooner or later we are going to HAVE to switch over anyway. Why not start doing it now? If climate change isn't real, we still end up with a better world, and if it IS real then we might be able to save the world.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Mike, you paint a rosy picture. What happens when a few billion other people from regions where it is now too hot to crop crops decide to join you in your breadbasket?

Doing anything is better than nothing? Hmm.

If the solution proposed involves giving governments even MORE money to mismanage … then I have more than plenty of reason to doubt the sanity and/or true motives of the pushers.

Dan

Scott: "What happens when a few billion other people from regions where it is now too hot to crop crops decide to join you in your breadbasket?"

LOL. Then I guess the answer is … the same thing that will happen if the pushers who already want the West to implement serious population control measures on their own citizens get their way, while the rest of the world does little to nothing effective about their own … we will be invaded, plain and simple. Not if but when, and for any number of reason that others might think that the grass is greener on this side.

So we might as well start preparing for that now, and take steps to prevent it. Or do you not take measures to prevent your nice things from being taken away by those who want them? :)

Dan

When you can't dispute the facts, attack the source. Typical, so typical.

As far as as American Thinker rehashing Anthony Watts, well he's been discredited and has little status in the Climate Science field. And to treat a know-nothing like Watts as an authority on Climate Science is a clear indication on the journalistic shortcomings of that blog. The comparison with Infowars is apt.

"At the other end of the spectrum are influential sites for "climate skeptics", such as Watts Up With That?, a blog run by meteorologist Anthony Watts, whom scientists have repeatedly criticized for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record."

Brainerd, Hanson, Cox, et al, "The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication"

For more on Watts:

link

and more:

"As is typical of media weathercasters, Watts (a college dropout) has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Unencumbered by scientific expertise he works by intuition, and intuitively he could not bring himself to accept the documented increase in the U.S. surface temperature record."

link

What's the matter, couldn't find an quote from Marc Morano and ClimateDepot?

Mike, you paint a rosy picture.

Mike paints a rosy picture because he doesn't understand the implications.

I look forward to a warmer world, one where the Northern USA, and Alaska and Canada and Russia are the breadbasket of the world.

That's not how it's works. You should atleast check stuff up before your just put your feet up and base your family's survival on fantasy.

Dan, are you saying what I'm thinking your saying? I'll give you an out if you want to reformulate that.

PS: the bubble is known as reality

Lol!

AGW is founded in junk science.

So the climate scientists that actually research the climate are doing "Junk Science". OK

When you can't dispute the facts, attack the source.

Ahh, so the "facts" from a college dropout without any scientific training (Watts) or the "facts" from a former Inhofe speech writer, also with zero science education (Morano) are what we should consider instead of the scientists? Is that your version of reality?

Dan, So your solution is to make the US such an awful place that there will be no point in anyone trying to come here? Sure sounds like it.

At least you solved the border problems…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

My question to the deniers is "What if you are wrong?" What happens then?

We not since I have pointed out that it has been warmer before.

This is all about control and skimming money from others.

We are far more likely to see another World War before anything from the so called Global Warming to happen.

And once again the fantasy of a renewable based energy utopia.

For various reasons – including the shutdown of coal fired plants due to the proposed regulations of the previous administration – there was a electrical power shortage this summer.

Per an employee of the local (in the process of shutdown) coal fired plant they ran a last hurrah of generation due to this as the spot price per megawatt hit $500. USD Normal pricing is $70 USD (and currently due to low demand in the Fall $15 USD).

During this time wind farms in Arizona were idle due to lack of wind.

So still no mention of nukes in any of this – it is either unreliable renewable or a return to the pre-20th Century lifestyle.

We not since I have pointed out that it has been warmer before.

You've had this explained to you before……..many times.

The Earth has been warmer before. The Earth has also been much colder before. No one is arguing against that. It is in the geological record.

However it took geological time periods to get that warm (or cold) and it took geological time periods to return. And that is what is different with AGW today. It is the rate of temperature change, and the rate of CO2 increase that are unprecedented. The fact that the Earth was hotter in the past is of no consequence to what is being discussed.

Grognard, no one is suggesting we just shut down the coal and oil fired power plants overnight. We slowly and rationally replace them with sufficient renewable sources of power until they are no longer needed. This can be done. It is being done in some countries. And I'd be perfectly happy to include nukes in the mix. I don't agree with the knee-jerk nuclear haters any more than I do with the knee-jerk climate change deniers.

During this time wind farms in Arizona were idle due to lack of wind.

Should have put in Solar Farms instead.

It is the rate of temperature change, and the rate of CO2 increase that are unprecedented.

So we have data from 20 million years ago or even 100,000 years ago.

I think not.

They are gaming the numbers to get the results that they want.

It is really no warmer now than 40 years ago.

link

But they use "Rules for Radicals" so stating something makes it true.

Oh and you can get rid of every single Coal power plant in this Country and all that will happen is that certain individuals will get richer as the cost to power you home will increase.

Remember this is about control and money.

Sure, I have no doubt that renewable power will fall under the control of the rich and powerful and they will make a fortune at our expense. But they are doing that right now anyway and damaging the environment to boot. So I'm still in favor of changing.

As for if it is warmer now than 40 years ago… I don't need any reports to prove to me that it is. Where I live (Philadelphia) 40 years ago it got COLD in the winter. Temperatures dropped below freezing in December and they stayed that way until mid-March. Creeks and ponds froze and you could go ice skating on them. Snow falls would stay on the ground and one would add to another and we'd have drifts many feet high. That simply does not happen anymore. Hasn't happened for quite a while. Oh yeah, we'll get a few days of cold weather and the occasional major snow storm. But a few days later and it's warmed up and snow is gone. The ponds never freeze solid anymore. It is definitely warmer now than then.

So we have data from 20 million years ago or even 100,000 years ago.

I think not.

Well, you're correct with the last sentence at least.

Let me turn the tables on you. Yesterday at 12:14 pm you stated:

"We not since I have pointed out that it has been warmer before."

So when was "before" and how do you know it was warmer?

Actually scientists can tell the temperature from long ago. Once again, you've had this explained to you before. Remember your stupid comment about needing a time machine and a thermometer? I do. I won't bother explaining it to you again, beyond suggesting Googling paleoclimatology for yourself and learning something.

It is really no warmer now than 40 years ago.

You do know that is from one weather station at the Overton Center in Texas, right? That's why a single sample is never useful in science.

Globally the temperatures are rising. The evidence is well documented and overwhelming. It is collected by every government and scientific organization that bothers to do so. Heck, even the Pentagon admits to this and has contingency plans drawn up. Sorry, but the measurements show that the world has heated up almost 1 degree in the last century (140 years or so).

From NASA's Earth Observatory:

link

From NOAA:

link

Cue and "global conspiracy" stuff…….

Remember this is about control and money.

As is typical you are wrong again. Coal is a non-renewable resource that will end. Some people have too look forward to the future alternatives. Others just sit back and sneer.

That simply does not happen anymore. Hasn't happened for quite a while. Oh yeah, we'll get a few days of cold weather and the occasional major snow storm. But a few days later and it's warmed up and snow is gone. The ponds never freeze solid anymore. It is definitely warmer now than then.

Yep, just ask anyone involved in the Ski Industry in Pennsylvania, New York State and Southern Ontario about trends in the last few decades. Less snow, more mid-season melting, more reliance on artificial snow making and a shorter overall season.

The length of the growing season is determined by the time between the last frost of Spring and the first in Autumn. The EPA has determined that the average growing season has lengthened by two weeks since the beginning of the 20th Century. The length of growing season has increased in almost every state. Longer in the West than the East.

I could cut and paste but I'll let everyone read the reports.

link

Terry

I suppose that is because a growing season, like the changing of the Fall colours on deciduous trees, is governed by the amount of sunlight per day, and not just the ambient temperature. But the absence of frost in the spring and fall will be critical to this increase

You can get the EPA's climate info by clicking at the top left of your link. Thanks for that.

Per an employee of the local (in the process of shutdown) coal fired plant they ran a last hurrah of generation due to this as the spot price per megawatt hit $500.00 USD USD Normal pricing is $70.00 USD USD (and currently due to low demand in the Fall $15.00 USD USD).

During this time wind farms in Arizona were idle due to lack of wind.

So still no mention of nukes in any of this – it is either unreliable renewable or a return to the pre-20th Century lifestyle.

goragrad, have you heard of the annual Lazard reports on energy? Every year it looks at the different forms of energy and determines the overall costs from the point of view of the investor. (They're an investment bank after all ;-) )

The US nuclear fleet is looking less and less a good investment mostly due to higher maintenance costs as they age, and to be honest, the business case for them was probably at their best in the early 90s after the Rio Earth summit. After all, nuclear centres are the world's most expensive way to boil water.

I was very bullish on nucs up until a few years ago until I saw the business case for them evaporate. That being said, I do think that there's room for a few of them for baseload and contingency events. For example, I've read a few studies that shows that the USA can get to about 80% renewable without with the current fleet of nuclear plants provided that they are continuously refurbished.

link

Actually scientists can tell the temperature from long ago.

No they can't but they can determine that it was warmer due to other factors.

As is typical you are wrong again. Coal is a non-renewable resource that will end.

Never mentioned Coal at all and the Power is that a few individuals think they know far more than you and that they need to be making all of the decisions.

They also want more money from everyone so that they can skim it off to them or their friends.

No they can't but they can determine that it was warmer due to other factors.

Again with the thermometer and time machine nonsense. Scientists can determine the global temperature without being there to use a thermometer. Like you said it is due to other factors. I know you have an aversion to "proxy" science, but that is your problem.

Never mentioned Coal at all….

Oct 10, 5:36 pm entry.

Paleoclimate is determined from four sources, archives, biological proxies, physical proxies and chemical proxies.

You can learn a lot more at the USGS site.
link

Terry

Yeah, what we need is a Federal carbon tax to discourage people from driving cars and burning garbage in 55 gallon drums in their back yards and eating hamburgers (or any kind of meat) and throwing empty Bud Light cans on the road. That will really change their behavior, by golly. Save the plant and all that jazz. Yeah sure.

Then again, what are we going to do about 8 billion people simply breathing in and breathing out and breathing in and breathing out 24/7 and creating all that carbon dioxide? Tell them to hold their breath?

Now if you can just convince India and China to do the same thing….