Climate Change Denial

[Norbert]

Yes, but you are skipping over what I said immediately before. It is unlikely to get that bad because before it gets that bad it will get bad enough that people will start demanding action politically.

No, I have already responded to that point twice. Why would you still think I'm skipping that point? And why then do you keep bringing up the earth's ability to "sort it out", nobody else does that, and that's the only reason I am talking about it... not because I would be skipping that point. You seem to be skipping that point yourself.

My answer was, and is, that once it gets "bad enough" as you say, the CO2 causing that badness will stay in the atmosphere for a really long time, probably for hundreds of years, so that badness would continue that long. That would be unacceptable: we need to be able to anticipate the catastrophe before it happens, or at least the sufficient probability of such a catastrophe. We cannot wait until the predictions of climate science become true, in order to convince those who still don't want to accept climate science. We need much more political action now, without further delay.

But I am curious: how bad do you think it needs to get? I just read an article that republican politicians are just starting to accept the fact that temperatures are increasing, which is still a far way from accepting climate science in general. I guess Trump is still calling it all a hoax, and he is still the one to whome most others bend their knee. What kind of badness do you think it will take for Trump to change his mind?

It’s a big problem for humans but not a big problem for the earth. Everything will balance itself out and (such that we’ve changed the name from global warming to climate change) sustainable population change will occur irrespective of our actions.

I don't get why you still talk about this in biblic proportions. Considering we are humans (most likely), a "big problem for humans" is simply a big problem.

 

[Norbert]

.....plus, once that state of a convincing-enough badness is reached, it will then still take many years to reduce CO2 emissions to an acceptable level. And the additional CO2 from these many years will create an even worse yet lasting situation.

 

[qdeathstar]

My answer was, and is, that once it gets "bad enough" as you say, the CO2 causing that badness will stay in the atmosphere for a really long time, probably for hundreds of years, so that badness would continue that long. That would be unacceptable: we need to be able to anticipate the catastrophe before it happens, or at least the sufficient probability of such a catastrophe.

50 years from now it’s pretty safe to assume the technology landscape will be much different that it is now. We are working on carbon capture technology now. We will make huge progress in this. Similar to how we have made huge strides in computing and medicine over the last 50 years.

But I am curious: how bad do you think it needs to get?

California is already there. Most people live on the coast. Once there coasts end up underwater, or when drought persists over farmland and famine becomes more widespread.

I don't get why you still talk about this in biblic proportions. Considering we are humans (most likely), a "big problem for humans" is simply a big problem.

Why do you start with the assumption that population grown is “good”?

 

[Norbert]

50 years from now it’s pretty safe to assume the technology landscape will be much different that it is now. We are working on carbon capture technology now. We will make huge progress in this. Similar to how we have made huge strides in computing and medicine over the last 50 years.

Of course we are working on carbon capture, but results are not worth mentioning so far. Maybe you underestimate the amount of CO2 being emitted: dozens of billion metric tons *each year*. In 2014 it was 35 billion tons that year alone, and growing steeply. That is wishful thinking at this point. Besides, where would you even store all that, each year, even if you could "capture" it? Not every technology makes progress as fast as computing.

And not every progress results in something that is practically useful. For example, from Wikipedia: "Research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s, but to date, no design has produced more fusion power output than the electrical power input.". That's 80 years of research without applicable result so far. But who knows, maybe fusion will save us from a disaster after all. I just wouldn't bet our future on it.

And neither would I bet on carbon capture. Aside from that I don't like the idea of filling up the planet with captured carbon, even if there was enough space. Much better not to produce any in the first place. Go solar.

California is already there. Most people live on the coast. Once there coasts end up underwater, or when drought persists over farmland and famine becomes more widespread.

California is where? See the thread on California Utilities. Not there yet.

Once the "coasts end up underwater", it will continue like that and you have an unspeakable disaster or two. And then two thousand.

So what I am missing the most from your views is the sense of urgency, the sense that we cannot accept the situation as it is.

Why do you start with the assumption that population grown is “good”?

What assumption exactly? Made by who? There was a related context of the discussion earlier, in the original thread. But what about that?

 

[qdeathstar]

And neither would I bet on carbon capture. Aside from that I don't like the idea of filling up the planet with captured carbon, even if there was enough space. Much better not to produce any in the first place. Go solar.

Of course go solar, but as you said there’s a lot of carbon in the atmosphere already and it’s basically impossible to imagine a scenerio where the worlds worst immitters (China and India and other developing countries) will end Im missions overnight, we have to figure it out. As far as your comment about filling up the planet with carbon, it is alreay filled with carbon. Where do you think the carbon in the atmosphere came from? Space? lol.

California is where? See the thread on California Utilities. Not there yet.

At a place where their constituents are demanding action of climate change.

What assumption exactly? Made by who? There was a related context of the discussion earlier, in the original thread. But what about that?

The implicit assumption of saying there will be unacceptable disasters is that any reduction in the human population is bad.

 

[Norbert]

Of course go solar, but as you said there’s a lot of carbon in the atmosphere already and it’s basically impossible to imagine a scenerio where the worlds worst immitters (China and India and other developing countries) will end Im missions overnight, we have to figure it out. As far as your comment about filling up the planet with carbon, it is alreay filled with carbon. Where do you think the carbon in the atmosphere came from? Space? lol.

Very funny. Also the question is much more so than for solar, who would pay for it, especially since you don't get electricity out of it. Carbon capture is bound to be very expensive at the enormous scale at which it would make a difference. So that's another reason that it will come very late in the game (if at all).

At a place where their constituents are demanding action of climate change.

Ummm, yes, to some degree, but that is of course with a traditionally democratic majority, which we don't (really) have in the Senate, there are only 49 such Senators. It would require a majority in the Senate and in the House at the same time, plus no Veto from the president at the same time. Plus the willingness to change the filibuster rules. And possibly the willingness of the Supreme Court. (And for example, most of the remaining coal industry is in red states, if I am not mistaken.)

The question was and is what it takes for the republican politicians to change their mind. (And similar questions for many other countries.)
Not that democratic politicians would all be perfect in that way either.

The implicit assumption of saying there will be unacceptable disasters is that any reduction in the human population is bad.

(???)... It is not so much the reduction in numbers as the dispair, pain and/or premature death which would be bad. You know, all those undesirable things that come along with disasters. The reduction in quality of life, so to speak. I would say that a sufficient quality of life is a requirement for calling some level "sustainable".

 

[qdeathstar]

Very funny. Also the question is much more so than for solar, who would pay for it, especially since you don't get electricity out of it. Carbon capture is bound to be very expensive at the enormous scale at which it would make a difference. So that's another reason that it will come very late in the game (if at all).

Who do you think pays for carbon offsets now? Those would be the same people paying for carbon capture. And if that’s not enough it will get paid for the same way any major utility is.

The question was and is what it takes for the republican politicians to change their mind. (And similar questions for many other countries.)
Not that democratic politicians would all be perfect in that way either.

Well, I’m not sure about what that would take but it will be faster to change the electorate just enough so that in red states the 55/45 changes to 45/55 and they get voted out.

 

[Norbert]

Who do you think pays for carbon offsets now? Those would be the same people paying for carbon capture. And if that’s not enough it will get paid for the same way any major utility is.

You say "if that's not enough". Carbon offsets are not enough (currently). And getting it paid like utilities requires the same kind of process as support for solar. Since we already have solar as a technology (and it is becoming more effective and cheaper as we go), that seems possible sooner and easier.

I guess what I am trying to say is that as long as we don't get more support for solar, it is more a political problem than a technological one.

Even so, solar's share is already growing and it will grow even faster as its effectivity/$ improves, yet that will reach some limit as currently natural gas is needed as a complement at night time. Also the current dynamic of solar depends at least in part on current federal support, which may expire by default.

Additionally, my concern is the CO2 that gets emitted in the meantime. And all that is not just my personal concern, but that of scientists and engineers who make complex calculations about how these things may develop into the future.

Well, I’m not sure about what that would take but it will be faster to change the electorate just enough so that in red states the 55/45 changes to 45/55 and they get voted out.

Well, easier said than done.

 

[eevee-fan]

CNN: It's so hot, roads are buckling, they're putting foil on a bridge and roofs are melting around the world.

It's so hot, roads are buckling, they're putting foil on a bridge and roofs are melting around the world | CNN

The deadly heatwaves of the last week have sparked strange infrastructural events around the world as millions endure searing temperatures that are still on the rise.

www.cnn.com

 

[eevee-fan]

Where's our chemtraiil conspiracy fans? LOL

Some smart entrepreneur would start a drone fleet to seed clouds... lower cost.

 

[JRP3]

Seems as if it could just be moving the problem to the east. Presumably those clouds would eventually gather enough moisture to drop rain further east. If you seed them and cause them to disperse rain early are you just moving the drought conditions? Might not be an issue if the area to the east has enough or too much rainfall.

 

[FlatSix911]

Interesting article on the pros and cons of Solar Geoengineering.

How artificially brightened clouds could stop climate change

The Earth cools after volcanoes erupt. Now some researchers think we should mimic those effects to reduce global warming. What could possibly go wrong?

www.bbc.com

"There are many preferable ways to reduce climate change than solar geoengineering. Planting trees – reforesting – is a proven, conservation-friendly method of taking carbon out of the atmosphere. A rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy would tackle the source of emissions. But neither are happening fast enough. Perhaps, if nothing else, even contemplating solar geoengineering may be enough to shock governments into rapid emissions reduction.

If the world says “no” to solar geo-engineering, that “is totally fine with me”, says Burns. “Truthfully this is scary, I hope we don’t have to do it.” But she, and academics such as Salter and Keith, at least want that “no” to be based on scientific evidence. “We are doing an intervention [already] into our atmosphere in an unprecedented way [through fossil fuel and CO2 emissions],” continues Burns. “We have something that could potentially help with some of the symptoms, albeit not the cure… it is such an important topic globally that we need to start thinking about it.”

 

[eevee-fan]

Interesting article on the pros and cons of Solar Geoengineering.

How artificially brightened clouds could stop climate change

The Earth cools after volcanoes erupt. Now some researchers think we should mimic those effects to reduce global warming. What could possibly go wrong?

www.bbc.com

Well, we could have fleets of floating airships with reflective foil on the top over the cities. This would probably be good during the hot summers and then taken down for the other months.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Well, we could have fleets of floating airships with reflective foil on the top over the cities. This would probably be good during the hot summers and then taken down for the other months.

View attachment 837432

Monty Burns tried that one.

 

[DerbyCityY]

I remember a George Carlin standup routine on climate change, which I found, that was made 30 years ago in 1992. Please watch, it attacks climate change from a different perspective.

 

[JRP3]

Please watch, it attacks climate change from a different perspective.

Uncharacteristically dumb perspective from George. He's basically saying the human race should just commit slow suicide instead of making reasonable changes in our behaviors because he doesn't want to think about stuff. Lost some respect for him after watching that.

 

[DerbyCityY]

Well considering the age in which it was said I believe he was trying to say we better be saving ourselves because the earth is going to go right on without us.

 

[JRP3]

Well considering the age in which it was said I believe he was trying to say we better be saving ourselves because the earth is going to go right on without us.

Except he actually said don't worry about anything, clean water, air, pesticides, etc., because "we're only here for a little while." Worrying about those things and doing something about them would be saving ourselves and the environment on which we depend. Incredibly short sighted and frankly ignorant of George to pretend otherwise.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Except he actually said don't worry about anything, clean water, air, pesticides, etc., because "we're only here for a little while." Worrying about those things and doing something about them would be saving ourselves and the environment on which we depend. Incredibly short sighted and frankly ignorant of George to pretend otherwise.

The point he purports to make is that earth was fine before us and will still be fine after we blow ourselves up.

 

[Norbert]

The point he purports to make is that earth was fine before us and will still be fine after we blow ourselves up.

Which wouldn't necessarily mean that the next evolution of intelligent species will do better than us...