New report on climate change released today

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It does seem pretty hopeless.

Only if you believe the hysteria.

Over forty years of intense scientific scrutiny, debate and hundreds of comprehensive studies conducted by multiple governments and the military and Exxon ffs--not to mention 98% of the world's smartest people--in no way constitutes as "hysteria" but good to know, once again, that you think you are in any way qualified to open your mouth.

We'll let you know when the next Dunning-Kruger awards will be held.

 

[TSwizzle]

You should calm down fella.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You should calm down fella.

It must be frustrating to not have any scientific evidence to support your position!

 

[bilby]

I'm baffled as to why people think the earth's climate should never fluctuate. These irresponsible proclamations of death and destruction are not based on science or evidence.

Nobody thinks climate should never fluctuate. But it has never 'fluctuated' as fast as it is now. Your response is like saying "I don't need an airbag in my car; Cars decelerate all the time, and nobody gets hurt". Slowing from 60mph to zero over the course of a minute is fine. Doing it over the course of half a second is going to smash your head through the windshield.

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.

NASA Earth Observatory

 

[ruby sparks]

It isn't the number of people; it's the waste they produce...

It's obviously both.

 

[bilby]

Gee. It would be really nice if we could discuss this like adults, instead of slinging insults. Okay. I know that's not going to happen, so how do we get the world to cut back on using coal? Anyone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Coal, the fuel that powered the industrial age, has led the planet to the brink of catastrophic climate change.

Scientists have repeatedly warned of its looming dangers, most recently on Friday, when a major scientific report issued by 13 United States government agencies warned that the damage from climate change could knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end if significant steps aren’t taken to rein in warming.

An October report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on global warming found that avoiding the worst devastation would require a radical transformation of the world economy in just a few years.

Central to that transformation: Getting out of coal, and fast.

And yet, three years after the Paris agreement, when world leaders promised action, coal shows no sign of disappearing. While coal use looks certain to eventually wane worldwide, according to the latest assessment by the International Energy Agency, it is not on track to happen anywhere fast enough to avert the worst effects of climate change. Last year, in fact, global production and consumption increased after two years of decline.

It does seem pretty hopeless.

The French got out of coal fast and effectively in the 1970s and '80s. It took just 15 years for them to almost eliminate carbon emissions from electricity generation, while increasing use from about 250 to over 500TWh/year. They are currently a major exporter of electricity to the rest of Western Europe.

The solution was (and remains) simple - build lots of nuclear power stations.

 

[bilby]

I have a question that is worth a full thread of its own somewhere.

Even if almost all (99.99%) of people disappeared in an instant and the remaining used all available methods to get CO2 back to below 300 ppm, could it be done?

Could even an alien race turn the wheel fast enough?

It would require what?

- Using crops to make charcoal that would be buried.

- Grinding up rocks like olivine to turbo-weather out carbonic acid.

- Finding some way to get plankton to get collected and deposited to sequester their carbon.

- Pushing the equilibrium in the ocean to make sure that more limestone (two types?) gets made and not dissolved. This would be very difficult.

All the while the tundra and arctic ocean shelves may soon be releasing huge stores of carbon.

All of these ideas are worth trying. And more solutions may be out there of course. We are intelligent enough...we have to at least try.

But first and foremost is LESS people in the first place. That does not mean kill everyone off the planet but it does mean some serious global population control.

And a close second to the aforementioned is learning how to put people other places than this planet. The Elon Musk style of doing things.

But blaming Trump and the US as the evil bad villians according to the OP is a complete and utter waste of time! Trump isnt going to fix a global problem nor should he be expected to. Expecially when 99.99% of this problem is TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE on this planet.

Population doesn't cause climate change - Fossil fuel use does. If our population was magically a tenth of what it is today, then (all else being equal), the improving quality of life for those 750 million people would rapidly get them to the same situation we are now in - in a century or less, the problem would be just as dire. Population reductions can't help much, even if you killed off nine out of ten people right this instant. What can and does help is getting energy from non-fossil sources. In fact, in the long run, that's the only viable solution for any practically achievable population level.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Gee. It would be really nice if we could discuss this like adults, instead of slinging insults. Okay. I know that's not going to happen, so how do we get the world to cut back on using coal? Anyone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/climate/coal-global-warming.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Coal, the fuel that powered the industrial age, has led the planet to the brink of catastrophic climate change.

Scientists have repeatedly warned of its looming dangers, most recently on Friday, when a major scientific report issued by 13 United States government agencies warned that the damage from climate change could knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end if significant steps aren’t taken to rein in warming.

An October report from the United Nations’ scientific panel on global warming found that avoiding the worst devastation would require a radical transformation of the world economy in just a few years.

Central to that transformation: Getting out of coal, and fast.

And yet, three years after the Paris agreement, when world leaders promised action, coal shows no sign of disappearing. While coal use looks certain to eventually wane worldwide, according to the latest assessment by the International Energy Agency, it is not on track to happen anywhere fast enough to avert the worst effects of climate change. Last year, in fact, global production and consumption increased after two years of decline.

It does seem pretty hopeless.

The French got out of coal fast and effectively in the 1970s and '80s. It took just 15 years for them to almost eliminate carbon emissions from electricity generation, while increasing use from about 250 to over 500TWh/year. They are currently a major exporter of electricity to the rest of Western Europe.

The solution was (and remains) simple - build lots of nuclear power stations.

Nuclear? What the hell are you talking about? Other than the fact that it's safe, cheap, environmentally friendly and creates high paying jobs - Where's the benefit?

 

[ruby sparks]

Population doesn't cause climate change - Fossil fuel use does. If our population was magically a tenth of what it is today, then (all else being equal), the improving quality of life for those 750 million people would rapidly get them to the same situation we are now in - in a century or less, the problem would be just as dire. Population reductions can't help much, even if you killed off nine out of ten people right this instant. What can and does help is getting energy from non-fossil sources. In fact, in the long run, that's the only viable solution for any practically achievable population level.

Oh look. A wingnut on the internet. Maybe I should pay attention.

 

[TSwizzle]

You should calm down fella.

It must be frustrating to not have any scientific evidence to support your position!

I’m not the one making outrageous proclamations of impending climate disaster or attributing natural events on “climate change” based on, well not much.

 

[bilby]

Population doesn't cause climate change - Fossil fuel use does. If our population was magically a tenth of what it is today, then (all else being equal), the improving quality of life for those 750 million people would rapidly get them to the same situation we are now in - in a century or less, the problem would be just as dire. Population reductions can't help much, even if you killed off nine out of ten people right this instant. What can and does help is getting energy from non-fossil sources. In fact, in the long run, that's the only viable solution for any practically achievable population level.

Oh look. A wingnut on the internet. Maybe I should pay attention.

Maybe you could point out what in my post you think is wrong? Or even is evidence of any kind for your suggestion that I am a 'wingnut'? Or maybe you really should pay attention?

Are you saying that fossil fuel use is not the main driver of climate change? That technology doesn't lead to higher per-capita fossil fuel use (all else being equal)? That getting energy from non-fossil sources is not the only viable solution to climate change?

Which of those points do you think I am wrong about?

Let me guess - you didn't even read past the first five words before your rather stupid knee-jerk reaction to what you guessed I might be saying.

You should definitely pay a LOT more attention than you evidently are.

 

[ruby sparks]

Population doesn't cause climate change - Fossil fuel use does. If our population was magically a tenth of what it is today, then (all else being equal), the improving quality of life for those 750 million people would rapidly get them to the same situation we are now in - in a century or less, the problem would be just as dire. Population reductions can't help much, even if you killed off nine out of ten people right this instant. What can and does help is getting energy from non-fossil sources. In fact, in the long run, that's the only viable solution for any practically achievable population level.

Oh look. A wingnut on the internet. Maybe I should pay attention.

Maybe you could point out what in my post you think is wrong? Or even is evidence of any kind for your suggestion that I am a 'wingnut'? Or maybe you really should pay attention?

Are you saying that fossil fuel use is not the main driver of climate change? That technology doesn't lead to higher per-capita fossil fuel use (all else being equal)? That getting energy from non-fossil sources is not the only viable solution to climate change?

Which of those points do you think I am wrong about?

Let me guess - you didn't even read past the first five words before your rather stupid knee-jerk reaction to what you guessed I might be saying.

You should definitely pay a LOT more attention than you evidently are.

We had a thorough discussion in another thread, in which it became apparent just how wingnutty your arguments were. Your maths there was laughably bad and that's just for starters. Carry on. As you were. I won't interrupt your wingnuttery any further here. I can't be bothered to discuss your wingnut rubbish twice.

 

[bilby]

Maybe you could point out what in my post you think is wrong? Or even is evidence of any kind for your suggestion that I am a 'wingnut'? Or maybe you really should pay attention?

Are you saying that fossil fuel use is not the main driver of climate change? That technology doesn't lead to higher per-capita fossil fuel use (all else being equal)? That getting energy from non-fossil sources is not the only viable solution to climate change?

Which of those points do you think I am wrong about?

Let me guess - you didn't even read past the first five words before your rather stupid knee-jerk reaction to what you guessed I might be saying.

You should definitely pay a LOT more attention than you evidently are.

We had this discussion in another thread. Your maths there was laughably bad and that's just for starters. I can't be bothered to discuss your wingnut rubbish twice.

Apology accepted. I am glad to know that you couldn't find any error in my reasoning here.

But as you still appear to consider your own errors as grounds to become needlessly insulting, I shall be putting you back on ignore. Have a nice day.

 

[laughing dog]

It does seem pretty hopeless.

Only if you believe the hysteria.

You mean like climate change deniers?

 

[ruby sparks]

I am glad to know that you couldn't find any error in my reasoning here.

There was reasoning in that post of yours? Sheesh. Who knew?

Your choice of dependent and independent variables is either entirely arbitrary or based on your personal preferences for solutions, one or the other.

And your maths is as ropey as last time too.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You should calm down fella.

It must be frustrating to not have any scientific evidence to support your position!

I’m not the one making outrageous proclamations of impending climate disaster or attributing natural events on “climate change” based on, well not much.

Would a well researched scientific paper with evidence, that could be falsified, with clearly defined sources, that is accepted by 97% of the scientific community convince you?

 

[TSwizzle]

I’m not the one making outrageous proclamations of impending climate disaster or attributing natural events on “climate change” based on, well not much.

Would a well researched scientific paper with evidence, that could be falsified, with clearly defined sources, that is accepted by 97% of the scientific community convince you?

Convince me of what exactly? And who knows, perhaps if such a thing actually exists, maybe it would convince me of something but quite honestly I don’t know what you are referring to.

 

[RVonse]

I have a question that is worth a full thread of its own somewhere.

Even if almost all (99.99%) of people disappeared in an instant and the remaining used all available methods to get CO2 back to below 300 ppm, could it be done?

Could even an alien race turn the wheel fast enough?

It would require what?

- Using crops to make charcoal that would be buried.

- Grinding up rocks like olivine to turbo-weather out carbonic acid.

- Finding some way to get plankton to get collected and deposited to sequester their carbon.

- Pushing the equilibrium in the ocean to make sure that more limestone (two types?) gets made and not dissolved. This would be very difficult.

All the while the tundra and arctic ocean shelves may soon be releasing huge stores of carbon.

All of these ideas are worth trying. And more solutions may be out there of course. We are intelligent enough...we have to at least try.

But first and foremost is LESS people in the first place. That does not mean kill everyone off the planet but it does mean some serious global population control.

And a close second to the aforementioned is learning how to put people other places than this planet. The Elon Musk style of doing things.

But blaming Trump and the US as the evil bad villians according to the OP is a complete and utter waste of time! Trump isnt going to fix a global problem nor should he be expected to. Expecially when 99.99% of this problem is TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE on this planet.

Population doesn't cause climate change

Then who is causing it? Are you blaming global warming on the cattle? If so, the widespread cultivation of cattle is still a by product of human civilization. All of global warming is caused by carbon ultimately traced back to human civilization.

Population reductions can't help much, even if you killed off nine out of ten people right this instant.

Then that is exactly how many people the earth can not sustain on current technology.

What can and does help is getting energy from non-fossil sources. In fact, in the long run, that's the only viable solution for any practically achievable population level.

The population is something we can control today. Your pie in the sky technology may not ever happen. Or it will happen too late.

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today. Otherwise the planet is in trouble and all life (even plants) are in peril.

 

[laughing dog]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today.

That is exactly the cause of the problem in the past and now: current technology which is still mainly fossil-fuel based is the primary human contribution to global climate change.

 

[RVonse]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today.

That is exactly the cause of the problem in the past and now: current technology which is still mainly fossil-fuel based is the primary human contribution to global climate change.

Agreed. And there are only 2 possible solutions:

1. The removal of current technology and return to simple subsistence living
2. Drastically reduce current population (same standard of living)

Either way, that means population must be reduced because you can not possibly support a high density population without modern agriculture.

There may be some pie in the sky Bilby technology in the distant the future that provides food and transportation without fossil fuels. But until that happens, the earth will be well on its way to heating up in a Venus runaway cycle. And nothing Trump or the US does is going to change any of that.