OT Earth

[beast blazer]

No, if humans disappear, we won't see big fluctuations in climate. We won't see anything, because we'll all be dead.

Yes, on a very long timescale, the earth has been, and presumably will be again, either too hot or too cold to support human life.

Causing those conditions to happen sooner is not really a great idea.

barfo

But we have seen big changes in climate well before humans existed. We've had several ice ages and several ice free periods. I just posted those graphs.

 

[Phatguysrule]

But the current average temperature doesn't seem so dramatic when viewed historically. It's part of a repeating cycle. If we zoom out even further, we're well below average. Even if humans disappeared, we're still going to see big flucuations in climate.

View attachment 64873

So again... Those temperature swings are over hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
We have never seen the climate change as fast as we are now experiencing at any time in human history.

The much smaller swings we have experienced resulted in massive loss of life and suffering.

It's possible with our curt technology and ability to innovate, if we come together with massive social safety nets like we've never seen before, that we [/b]may[/b] be able to avoid some of that suffering and death. At a cost of hundreds of trillions of today's dollars.

Or, we could just make the adjustments now to avoid as much of that as possible at a much lower cost.

There is no need to outright ban anything tomorrow. But the sooner we can reduce as much manmade greenhouse gas emissions as possible (and really, as much pollution nas possible) the better off the future can be for our children and grandchildren.

 

[Phatguysrule]

But we have seen big changes in climate well before humans existed. We've had several ice ages and several ice free periods. I just posted those graphs.

Not like this. Not in hundreds of years. Those graphs are over hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of changes. That's geological timescales We're talking about drastic change over hundreds of years.

Biology doesn't adapt that fast. It's almost never had to. When it has had to we've seen mass extinction events.

Below is a graph over much shorter human timescales. We've never seen anything like we've seen over the last hundred years.

Chemists can test for man-made carbon. We know how much excess carbon is in the atmosphere and how much of it is man made.

Earth Temperature Timeline

 

[beast blazer]

So again... Those temperature swings are over hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
We have never seen the climate change as fast as we are now experiencing at any time in human history.

The much smaller swings we have experienced resulted in massive loss of life and suffering.

It's possible with our curt technology and ability to innovate, if we come together with massive social safety nets like we've never seen before, that we [/b]may[/b] be able to avoid some of that suffering and death. At a cost of hundreds of trillions of today's dollars.

Or, we could just make the adjustments now to avoid as much of that as possible at a much lower cost.

There is no need to outright ban anything tomorrow. But the sooner we can reduce as much manmade greenhouse gas emissions as possible (and really, as much pollution nas possible) the better off the future can be for our children and grandchildren.

Temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm period, and that was good for humans, crop yields were higher, and farming was possible at higher latitudes. Scientists used to think we were headed back to an ice age, that would be much worse than getting warmer. Perhaps the CO2 is in fact protecting us from that?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warm period, and that was good for humans, crop yields were higher, and farming was possible at higher latitudes. Scientists used to think we were headed back to an ice age, that would be much worse than getting warmer. Perhaps the CO2 is in fact protecting us from that?

Without the excess carbon humans have released we WOULD be headed toward another ice age. In several thousand years.

Nobody is saying biology cannot survive at higher temperatures. They are saying that we aren't prepared to do so, and biology doesn't change as fast as the greenhouse gases and other pollution we're releasing are causing our ecosystem to change.

This will result in mass suffering and has already set in motion a mass extinction event like only seen a few times in the history of life on earth.

Doing what we can now to mitigate that is far less expensive and far less complicated than waiting.

 

[oldfisherman]

 

[Phatguysrule]

Thanks for posting that video.

It's a bit sensationalist though... Nobody serious believes the global temperature will reach 1.5degrees gain by 2030. Nobody serious has made that claim. None of the people quoted in that video made that claim. Nobody in this thread has suggested sudden bans.

Every year we aren't at net zero emissions or below we are making it harder and more expensive to mitigate in the future. That's just obvious. Having a plan to reduce carbon levels already in the atmosphere once we reach net zero is also a great thing, but it should not be developed as a way to get us to net zero, as corporations will simply increase emissions if that is the case. They must REDUCE greenhouse gas and other pollutant emissions to as close to net zero as possible.

What those people are talking about are some models showing points (8, 10, 12 years I believe were mentioned in the video) beyond which (assuming current levels of emissions) we can no longer realistically prevent certain levels of temperature rise. Those temperatures have been agreed upon by experts in their fields to be levels at which humans can expect even greater increased difficulty due to the ability (or inability) of biology to adapt to the ecosystem.

The video literally ends by saying it is a serious problem. That we need to accelerate reductions in emissions using sensible transitions that do not harm the economy. Which is exactly what I have been advocating for.

 

[beast blazer]

Without the excess carbon humans have released we WOULD be headed toward another ice age. In several thousand years.

Nobody is saying biology cannot survive at higher temperatures. They are saying that we aren't prepared to do so, and biology doesn't change as fast as the greenhouse gases and other pollution we're releasing are causing our ecosystem to change.

This will result in mass suffering and has already set in motion a mass extinction event like only seen a few times in the history of life on earth.

Doing what we can now to mitigate that is far less expensive and far less complicated than waiting.

Who is arguing that the biology can't handle temperature change? Plants and animals survive at ranges much greater than what they are talking about with climate change. The doomsday predictions I've heard are about things like the jet stream stopping and the coasts flooding.

Ironic that the same people pushing this don't hesitate to buy beach front properties.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Who is arguing that the biology can't handle temperature change? Plants and animals survive at ranges much greater than what they are talking about with climate change.

Nobody. In fact, I've already confirmed exactly that. Biology has handled these temperatures before, and will do it again. They are arguing (and the evidence supports the position) that human biology isn't equipped to deal with the RATE of global temperature change and the unlivable local environmental and weather conditions that will increasingly bring with it.

The doomsday predictions I've heard are about things like the jet stream stopping and the coasts flooding.

Ironic that the same people pushing this don't hesitate to buy beach front properties.

Many of the coasts will flood. The wealthy won't have to worry about it much. They'll just chalk that property up as a loss and move someplace else. But by 2050 about 800 million people who aren't wealthy will live in coastal cities around the world which are vulnerable to the over .5 meter sea level rise. And the sea level is expected to rise by at least that much, possible twice that much by 2100 if we fail to curb emissions soon. Again, no matter what we do, there will be a long tail on the impacts of our excess emissions. And we're increasingly finding that our models have UNDER estimated the impacts of our emissions.

There will be water scarcity like that which likely started the civil war in Syria after thousands of farmers were forced from their farms and had to migrate to urban centers. We can expect that all over the world without DRASTIC action.

You think the homeless problem in Portland is bad now? That's nothing...

But yeah, the rich people you see on TV don't have to personally worry about it. They will likely be fine, in fact, they'll probably be dead before we see the impacts of our actions today.

But I have kids. And I want them to be able to have kids (if they want). I want as little suffering as possible for our future generations. I'd like to leave the world better than we found it. Unfortunately that is already impossible for my generation. Some parts of the world WILL become inhabitable, regardless of any realistic action we take. Like, if you live there and your A/C breaks, you'll die.

But it would be nice to get it on a path toward recovery.

 

[oldfisherman]

 

[Phatguysrule]

She says a lot about what NASA has found. But NASA has actually released tools that show what they expect depending on our emissions...

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool

These projections are based on the assessment presented in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
Details of the sea level projections are provided in Box TS.4 and section 9.6 of the Working Group 1 contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report.

Sea level projections considering only processes for which projections can be made with at least medium confidence are provided, relative to the period 1995–2014, for five Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios and five different future Global Mean Surface Temperatures (from 2080-2100). The SSP scenarios are described in sections TS1.3 and 1.6 and Cross-Chapter Box 1.4 of the Working Group 1 contribution.

As described in Cross-Chapter Box 1.4:

• SSP1-1.9 holds warming to approximately 1.5°C above 1850-1900 in 2100 after slight overshoot (median) and implies net zero CO2 emissions around the middle of the century.
• SSP1-2.6 stays below 2.0°C warming relative to 1850-1900 (median) with implied net zero emissions in the second half of the century.
• SSP2-4.5 is approximately in line with the upper end of aggregate Nationally Determined Contribution emission levels by 2030. SR1.5 assessed temperature projections for NDCs to be between 2.7 and 3.4°C by 2100, corresponding to the upper half of projected warming under SSP2-4.5. New or updated NDCs by the end of 2020 did not significantly change the emissions projections up to 2030, although more countries adopted 2050 net zero targets in line with SSP1-1.9 or SSP1-2.6. The SSP2-4.5 scenario deviates mildly from a ‘no-additional- climate-policy’ reference scenario, resulting in a best-estimate warming around 2.7°C by the end of the 21st century relative to 1850-1900.
• SSP3-7.0 is a medium to high reference scenario resulting from no additional climate policy under the SSP3 socioeconomic development narrative. SSP3-7.0 has particularly high non-CO2 emissions, including high aerosols emissions.
• SSP5-8.5 is a high reference scenario with no additional climate policy. Emission levels as high as SSP5-8.5 are not obtained by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) under any of the SSPs other than the fossil fueled SSP5 socioeconomic development pathway.

Compared to 1850-1900, globally averaged surface air temperature over the period 2081–2100 is very likely (at least a 90% probability) to be higher by 1.0°C–1.8°C under SSP1-1.9, 1.3°C–2.4°C under SSP1-2.6, 2.1°C–3.5°C under SSP2-4.5, 2.8°C–4.6°C under SSP3-7.0, and 3.3°C–5.7°C under SSP5-8.5. Sea level projections are also provided at five specific future Global Mean Surface Temperatures (from 2080-2100): 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C, 4°C and 5°C.

In the sea level projections, likely ranges are assessed based upon the combination of uncertainty in the temperature change associated with an emissions scenarios and uncertainty in the relationships between temperature and drivers of projected sea level change, such as thermal expansion, ocean dynamics, and glacier and ice sheet mass loss. In general, 17th-83rd percentile results are interpreted as likely ranges, reflecting the use of the term likely to refer to a probability of at least 66%. Note, Fewer global climate model simulations are available after 2100, which can lead to discontinuity in projections between 2100 and immediately following decades, particularly in regions where dynamic sea level effects are an important contributor.

To indicate the potential impact of deeply uncertain ice sheet processes, about which there is currently a low level of agreement and limited evidence, low confidence projections are also provided for SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. For both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the low confidence projections integrate information from the Structured Expert Judgement study of Bamber et al. (2019). For the Antarctic ice sheet, the low confidence projections> projections also incorporate results from a simulation study that incorporates Marine Ice Cliff Instability (DeConto et al., 2021). The results shown are 17th-83rd percentile projections, but are not assessed as likely ranges because of the low agreement and limited evidence. See section 9.6 and Box 9.4 for more details.

For more information on the use of likelihood and confidence language by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, see Box 1.1.

 

[beast blazer]

Nobody. In fact, I've already confirmed exactly that. Biology has handled these temperatures before, and will do it again. They are arguing (and the evidence supports the position) that human biology isn't equipped to deal with the RATE of global temperature change and the unlivable local environmental and weather conditions that will increasingly bring with it.


Many of the coasts will flood. The wealthy won't have to worry about it much. They'll just chalk that property up as a loss and move someplace else. But by 2050 about 800 million people who aren't wealthy will live in coastal cities around the world which are vulnerable to the over .5 meter sea level rise. And the sea level is expected to rise by at least that much, possible twice that much by 2100 if we fail to curb emissions soon. Again, no matter what we do, there will be a long tail on the impacts of our excess emissions. And we're increasingly finding that our models have UNDER estimated the impacts of our emissions.

There will be water scarcity like that which likely started the civil war in Syria after thousands of farmers were forced from their farms and had to migrate to urban centers. We can expect that all over the world without DRASTIC action.

You think the homeless problem in Portland is bad now? That's nothing...

But yeah, the rich people you see on TV don't have to personally worry about it. They will likely be fine, in fact, they'll probably be dead before we see the impacts of our actions today.

But I have kids. And I want them to be able to have kids (if they want). I want as little suffering as possible for our future generations. I'd like to leave the world better than we found it. Unfortunately that is already impossible for my generation. Some parts of the world WILL become inhabitable, regardless of any realistic action we take. Like, if you live there and your A/C breaks, you'll die.

But it would be nice to get it on a path toward recovery.

The effect of CO2 on climate is a fine thing to study. It stands to reason that it could be affecting our climate, but there are clearly a lot of other factors, and the doomsday predictions don't have a very good track record so far.

It's not clear right now what the net affect is. There are some clear benefits to both CO2 and warming, and CO2 is a very natural part of the natural cycle. It's not like some toxic exotic chemical we're putting into the air.

Another issue is that the "hockey stick" that shows the dramatic upward swing starting in the 20s(when we were putting out 1/10th the carbon as now) is dubious. Where is the medival warm period? The IPCC graph in 1990 showed the medieval warm period till they shifted over to the global warming narrative.

It was warmer during the Medieval warm period that it is today. Greenland was much more hospitable and they were able to grow grapes at higher latitudes. The IPCC flattened that out in order to push this "human caused global warming" scare.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The effect of CO2 on climate is a fine thing to study. It stands to reason that it could be affecting our climate, but there are clearly a lot of other factors, and the doomsday predictions don't have a very good track record so far.

It's not clear right now what the net affect is. There are some clear benefits to both CO2 and warming, and CO2 is a very natural part of the natural cycle. It's not like some toxic exotic chemical we're putting into the air.

Another issue is that the "hockey stick" that shows the dramatic upward swing starting in the 20s(when we were putting out 1/10th the carbon as now) is dubious. Where is the medival warm period? The IPCC graph in 1990 showed the medieval warm period till they shifted over to the global warming narrative.

It was warmer during the Medieval warm period that it is today. Greenland was much more hospitable and they were able to grow grapes at higher latitudes. The IPCC flattened that out in order to push this "human caused global warming" scare.

View attachment 64890

No, this is all pretty well understood. We know exactly what is in the atmosphere now compared to what was in the atmosphere pre-industrial revolution. Since industrial carbon has a different atomic signature than naturally occuring carbon we know exactly how much is man-made.

You keep trying to change the argument to something nobody is saying.

 

[beast blazer]

No, this is all pretty well understood. We know exactly what is in the atmosphere now compared to what was in the atmosphere pre-industrial revolution. Since industrial carbon has a different atomic signature than naturally occuring carbon we know exactly how much is man-made.

You keep trying to change the argument to something nobody is saying.

I'm changing the argument? We were talking about temperature, now you're talking about CO2 levels, which are supposedly going to trigger run away heating.

We're at 420ppm now, and yes, humans have caused that but the question is how concerning is this and what should we do about it? The optimal level for plants is 3x the current amount, humans the OSHA limit for constant exposure during an 8 hour work day is 5,000ppm, which is half the amount that a few people start to become drowsy.

I don't think we should run the experiment of seeing what happens when CO2 levels reach that high, but we not in a danger zone right now. Humans will need a new source of energy at some point, and it won't come from solar panels and wind farms.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm changing the argument? We were talking about temperature, now you're talking about CO2 levels, which are supposedly going to trigger run away heating.

We're at 420ppm now, and yes, humans have caused that but the question is how concerning is this and what should we do about it? The optimal level for plants is 3x the current amount, humans the OSHA limit for constant exposure during an 8 hour work day is 5,000ppm, which is half the amount that a few people start to become drowsy.

I don't think we should run the experiment of seeing what happens when CO2 levels reach that high, but we not in a danger zone right now. Humans will need a new source of energy at some point, and it won't come from solar panels and wind farms.

You are just ignoring what I'm saying. We've already covered this ground.

However, clean energy is definitely the best solution. That will happen faster with my proposed pollution tax and dividend. That will make dirty forms of energy far more expensive and give the poor and middle class more money to support cleaner forms of energy.

Thereby changing the market forces to encourage more of the least harmful energy sources.

 

[beast blazer]

You are just ignoring what I'm saying. We've already covered this ground.

However, clean energy is definitely the best solution. That will happen faster with my proposed pollution tax and dividend. That will make dirty forms of energy far more expensive and give the poor and middle class more money to support cleaner forms of energy.

Thereby changing the market forces to encourage more of the least harmful energy sources.

If we put a more taxes on the life blood of civilization, it'll make everything more expensive. But we could save money as in nation in all kinds of way sand get solar panels on every roof. That would be good, but still not solve the issue. Especially with China building multiple coal plants per week.

What we really need is a new source of energy.

 

[Phatguysrule]

If we put a more taxes on the life blood of civilization, it'll make everything more expensive. But we could save money as in nation in all kinds of way sand get solar panels on every roof. That would be good, but still not solve the issue. Especially with China building multiple coal plants per week.

What we really need is a new source of energy.

No. You simply don't understand this, as you don't understand climate change.

This gives the poor and middle class more money than the increased taxes would cost them. That's written in.

If Chinese products built with dirty energy cost more for Americans to buy then China would have less incentive to build coal plants and more incentive to convert the coal plants they have built to geothermal. As would everyone else. Same with natural gas plants.

China is also building out more clean energy than any other nation.

 

[barfo]

If we put a more taxes on the life blood of civilization, it'll make everything more expensive. But we could save money as in nation in all kinds of way sand get solar panels on every roof. That would be good, but still not solve the issue. Especially with China building multiple coal plants per week.

What we really need is a new source of energy.

If only we could harness the power of being wrong, we'd have a consistent and plentiful source of energy.

barfo

 

[beast blazer]

If only we could harness the power of being wrong, we'd have a consistent and plentiful source of energy.

barfo

Hey, now that I agree with.

 

[beast blazer]

No. You simply don't understand this, as you don't understand climate change.

This gives the poor and middle class more money than the increased taxes would cost them. That's written in.

If Chinese products built with dirty energy cost more for Americans to buy then China would have less incentive to build coal plants and more incentive to convert the coal plants they have built to geothermal. As would everyone else. Same with natural gas plants.

China is also building out more clean energy than any other nation.

You have a lefty view of taxes. But the reality view is that taxing commodities raises the price for the consumer. You tax things to discourage their use, which might work for things like cigarettes, but what not for something everyone needs.

Rather than tax everyone more, why don't we figure out what is causing so much chronic disease? We could put that money toward solar panels. Solar panels still wouldn't get us off carbon. And I don't believe we need to be in a panic to get off carbon right now, but we should be investing in discovering new technology.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You have a lefty view of taxes. But the reality view is that taxing commodities raises the price for the consumer. You tax things to discourage their use, which might work for things like cigarettes, but what not for something everyone needs.

Rather than tax everyone more, why don't we figure out what is causing so much chronic disease?

That's what this does. Pollution causes a ton of chronic disease and death.

We could put that money toward solar panels. Solar panels still wouldn't get us off carbon.

This would encourage people to buy solar panels, as well as invest in nuclear, geothermal, etc.

This literally solves this problem as well. Using market forces.

And I don't believe we need to be in a panic to get off carbon right now, but we should be investing in discovering new technology.

There is no down side to moving to cleaner energy sources than carbon unless you just love to have Russia and other authoritarian regimes as a world powers. That's literally the only benefit, it all goes to the extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else.Everything else is a downside.

The taxes are mandated to go into the progressive dividend. Just like Oregon's kicker is mandated to be disbursed, except these would be legislated to be disbursed progressively so that the middle class and poor receive more than the increase in pricing . That's in the law. It can not be changed except by vote. Nobody is going to vote to get rid of their income source. Just like the Oregon kicker. It has nothing to do with left or right.

Pretty much all serious economists agree that a pollution tax is the best solution to both curb pollution and encourage the development of alternative sources.

Once again, yes, the price would rise for items that rely on pollution. That's what we want. The dividend would pay the poor and middle class (the vast majority of the population) more than the rising price of those items. That is not negotiable. It is written in.

 

[beast blazer]

Classifying CO2 as a "pollutant" is part of climate change propaganda. Plants, the basis of our food chain, need Co2 and thrive at levels 3x what they are now. Burning fossil fuels does generate other pollutants, but Co2 is not one of them.

Solar and wind can't replace fossil fuels. You need to do more research into that. California has been doing solar up to wazzo for decades and Gavin still has to ask people to not plug in their electric cars and they have to import coal powered energy from Mexico. It's a fine source of power, but it's supplemental.

So you're going to end up increasing the cost of living for everyone when our economy is already strained. They want to ration everything for you while they continue to live high on the hog.

This idea is sort of like taxing food to get people to lose weight.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Classifying CO2 as a "pollutant" is part of climate change propaganda. Plants, the basis of our food chain, need Co2 and thrive at levels 3x what they are now. Burning fossil fuels does generate other pollutants, but Co2 is not one of them.

Solar and wind can't replace fossil fuels. You need to do more research into that. California has been doing solar up to wazzo for decades and Gavin still has to ask people to not plug in their electric cars and they have to import coal powered energy from Mexico. It's a fine source of power, but it's supplemental.

So you're going to end up increasing the cost of living for everyone when our economy is already strained. They want to ration everything for you while they continue to live high on the hog.

This idea is sort of like taxing food to get people to lose weight.

Again, you're complaining about things that have already been addressed. I don't know why, but you're clearly trying to avoid solutions that would address every concern you've mentioned.

Are you not quoting me so that I don't keep pointing out the solutions to your supposed concerns?

 

[Road Ratt]

How Quantum Dots Could Make the Most Efficient Solar Panel

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Road Ratt]

5 Best Alternatives to Finally Replace Plastic

 

[Road Ratt]

Did We Just Find Moss That Could Terraform Mars? The Immortal Moss Syntrichia Caninervis

 

[Road Ratt]

America's grid battery revolution.

 

[Road Ratt]

Solving Quantum Computers' Biggest Problem!

 

[Road Ratt]

Would you be OK with a Semi Solid State?