Climate Change

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

One would have to think that the discovery and development of antibiotics might qualify as having a 'global species level' impact since it has saved hundreds of millions of lives, but perhaps you dismiss such events as purely the byproduct of random unthinking influences, and having nothing to do with the actions of a few people, as was Krogensailor's point. Such a dreary view of things you have, Conachair.

And could you fill us in on how exactly the usage of hydrocarbons is so obviously stupid when measured in terms of the impact it has had on civilization, quality of life, longevity of life, etc. etc. etc.?

Again an example of how humans are wired to think in short term short time scale NIMBY terms. Are a few billion lives good for the long term species stability? Also short term quality or length of life (for us few fat westerners anyway, most people have no money and lots go to bed hungry) , that has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of long term success of one particular species of ape. Digging up hydrocarbons and setting fire to them, in the long run, is really really stupid.

Possibly just as interesting than asking those sorts of questions is asking why those sorts of questions are never asked.

[Delfin]

One of the many questions I have always had about anthropogenic global warming influences is where it has been shown that such warming, if true, is bad? I know it must be bad some places, but it also must certainly be good in some others. But perhaps the point is moot, since the causative effect of enhanced CO2 levels on increasing temperatures has not been demonstrated, which I suppose is why the computer models failed to predict the lack of warming over the last 20 years, in fact predicting the opposite. And rather than melting, Artic ice was at a near record high density in 2013, with Antarctic ice the thickest ever.

Sea Ice News: Volume 4 #1 – Arctic Ice gain sets a new record | Watts Up With That?

For a perspective on how those dedicated to anthropogenic warming as reality treat this issue, this National Geographic article is a classic:

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?

This article carefully explains that, as of 2012, the continued and steady growth of antarctic ice really doesn't change their conclusion that the planet is going to hell in a hand basket because of SUVs since after all, the Arctic is shrinking.

Oops. Note the graph in the first link, published in 2013, showing that Arctic ice is doing just fine, thank you, and setting records for thickness. Maybe that is why I am skeptical, I just keep getting the feeling I am being scammed.

Which begs a question. If the polar ice is growing, AND there is no measurable cooling of the planet for decades, does that mean that it is only increasing atmospheric CO2 levels that is preventing us from slipping into another ice age, which by the way, would be a far worse outcome for humanity than the opening of beach resorts in the Aleutians? If so, does that mean we should figure out ways to increase our carbon footprints rather than decreasing them? Hmmm....

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that frugality in how we use earth's resources is a virtue and I laud anyone who wants to reduce their impact on the environment. I like clean water and clean air and am happy to live under regulatory schemes that ensure that. My only question is whether we should spend trillions solving what appears to be a non problem, and just how seriously should we take people who are so vigorous in promoting their campaign against man made emissions of CO2, regardless of the lack of evidence that it is having any effect on anything.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Again an example of how humans are wired to think in short term short time scale NIMBY terms. Are a few billion lives are good for the long term species stability? Also short term quality or length of life (for us few fat westerners anyway, most people have no money and lots go to bed hungry) , that has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of long term success of one particular species of ape. Digging up hydrocarbons and setting fire to them, in the long run, is really really stupid.

Possibly just as interesting than asking those sorts of questions is asking why those sorts of questions are never asked.

Ok, I see you repeated your statement so obviously believe it, but actually what I was looking for was some factual, or scientific, or logical basis for the statement. You say burning fossil fuels is stupid. I merely asked why. Can you offer anything to support that belief, other than the fact you think there are too many human beings?

From what I can gather about your position is that you don't like fossil fuels, you think it bad that some people are more materially blessed than others, and that people living longer is not necessarily a good thing. I was just wondering if you were merely expressing your nihilism, or what the basis of these bleak views might be.

You certainly don't have to explain yourself; I was just curious.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ok, I see you repeated your statement so obviously believe it, but actually what I was looking for was some factual, or scientific, or logical basis for the statement. You say burning fossil fuels is stupid. I merely asked why. Can you offer anything to support that belief, other than the fact you think there are too many human beings?

From what I can gather about your position is that you don't like fossil fuels, you think it bad that some people are more materially blessed than others, and that people living longer is not necessarily a good thing. I was just wondering if you were merely expressing your nihilism, or what the basis of these bleak views might be.

You certainly don't have to explain yourself; I was just curious.

It's not difficult from a long term point not view. Long term needs equilibrium. Fossil fuels are non sustainable. Is that not obvious?
What you see as bleak I see as realistic, even if if doesn't look good. What I like or don't like doesn't come in to it. Human population levels have increased near instantly to plague levels based on non sustainable resources and are causing ng massive disruption to life on this small lump of rock, on what basis do you think this can carry on given that there is no evidence to suggest that humans are capable of acting in a manner suited for long term species stability?

[hpeer]

Conachair,

FWIW, you are not alone in your thinking. There are a few, self included, who get your point and share you view.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

It's not difficult from a long term point not view. Long term needs equilibrium. Fossil fuels are non sustainable. Is that not obvious?
What you see as bleak I see as realistic, even if if doesn't look good. What I like or don't like doesn't come in to it. Human population levels have increased near instantly to plague levels based on non sustainable resources and are causing ng massive disruption to life on this small lump of rock, on what basis do you think this can carry on given that there is no evidence to suggest that humans are capable of acting in a manner suited for long term species stability?

In the long term, nothing is sustainable since the universe is heading for heat death. You might as well use that as an excuse for halting the growth of technology as anything else, I suppose. And while you are quite right that a hydrocarbon based civilization is not sustainable for thousands of years, it certainly is so for many hundreds. The predictions that we were approaching 'peak oil' have been shown to be as laughable a concept as many less hysterical folks thought it would be. The U.S. will outproduce Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2017 - 2020 and we're just getting started. There is enough methane hydrate in the U.S. to supply the world's energy needs for the next 300 years, and I imagine that sometime within those centuries fusion energy or efficient solar or tidal, or whatever will replace hydrocarbons as an energy source. In the meantime, worry about the Andomedra Galaxy, which is speeding our way and will collide with the Milky Way in only 4 billion years.

Your complaint that there are too many people on the planet on the one hand while asserting that we are incapable of sustaining ourselves on the other possesses an irony I guess must elude you. And don't look now, but global population is leveling fast, growing at only 1.1% (below replacement), which is going to cause a population crash that will be a much bigger problem for us than continued population growth.

When people fear things that are fantasy, they usually pay no attention to the things they should fear.

[bobofthenorth]

Nor is Delfin alone in his outlook. There is a great silent majority who are tired of listening to the thinly veiled socialist income redistribution schemes of the eco- warriors with their gloomy apocalyptic Malthusian predictions. If I can grow oranges in Regina or traverse the NW passage in my lifetime I'll call that a good thing but I see no likelihood of either happening.

Every generation predicts a gloomy future but somehow homo sapiens always manages to muddle through.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by bobofthenorth

Nor is Delfin alone in his outlook. There is a great silent majority who are tired of listening to the thinly veiled socialist income redistribution schemes of the eco- warriors with their gloomy apocalyptic Malthusian predictions. If I can grow oranges in Regina or traverse the NW passage in my lifetime I'll call that a good thing but I see no likelihood of either happening.

Every generation predicts a gloomy future but somehow homo sapiens always manages to muddle through.

That's a pity, there really is so much more to understand.

I do envy your rosy outlook though, it is much better than mine.

[sabray]

That's why I am pro exploiting our resources and just don't care about trying to be efficient. I open my windows and crank the AC. Never mind that were tearing the tops of mountains off in West Virginia. It's all good the run off is downstream of me. Why would I care you told me years ago we were all going to die. What's another mountain or another species going extinct. I'm a homo sapien I will figure out how to get by.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Population is not growing exponentially. You point is?

Reading is fundamental!

World Population: Fertility Surprise Implies More Populous Future | Vital Signs Online

Based on current trends in global birth, death, and migration rates, the United Nations projects a variety of future population scenarios, with the three principal ones suggesting that world population will be somewhere between 6.8 billion and 16.6 billion at the end of this century.2

Based in large part on the 2010 round of annual censuses in countries around the world, the new U.N. Population Division report, World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, dispels a widespread view that experts expect population growth to end “on its own” sometime in the second half of the twenty-first century.4 Rather, the new medium-fertility or best-guess scenario suggests the most likely outcome is that world population will continue to grow throughout this century and into the next. In this scenario, the world still gains more than 10 million people in the year 2100 and closes the century at 10.9 billion.5

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Actually people have been living in Florida without AC for centuries. All that is needed is that the US ( and everyone else) takes the climate in to account when designing houses.
I spend some time in a house in the Australian outback, that was designed to remain cool without AC. It worked. Start by building walls from real stone in stead of plasterboard. My house is built from reinforced concrete (as is the norm here). Stays nicely cool even in a heat wave.
There are houses in Scandinavia that can maintain a pleasant interior climate throughout the depths of winter without needing any heating. Huge savings both in energy used in heating and cooling are easily achieved.

Both the passive systems you saw in Australia and the widely used evaporative system that are very common are viable because in the places where most of the people live and in the outback the climate is fairly dry and humidity is generally low. They do not work well in tropical Australia and the more power hungry compressor driven aircon is more prevalent in these areas.

Better insulated housing is definitely the way to go in the long term and is something we should aspire to.

Making it easier for people to relocate within their own communities by having a mix of housing types - small low rise apartments with a good range of services for the elderly mixed with detached bungalows for those raising families and not charging transfer taxes would also be a good way to go.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Basing policy on the worst that can happen is bad policy. What matters is what will probably happen, not what could happen. It's impossible to be prepared for the worst you can imagine.

...

So, most likely your next sail will not involve a sinking or medical emergency or someone falling overboard.

Which is why you do not carry a life raft, first aid kit, or life jackets?

Based on your above statements I presume you consider them "bad policy?"

I do suggest you give that book a read, it is really quite good and not very technical. It is a very common sense review of risk management and can be applied widely in life.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Conachair,

FWIW, you are not alone in your thinking. There are a few, self included, who get your point and share you view.

Ta it's only gloomy if you see humans as the centre of things and not just yet another cog.

Actually, personally if I ruled the world...

I would stop being so selfish and short term and do something really special. Long term our plannet is doomed, the sun will swallow it up one day. Want to be really bold? do something really special? Then make an evolutionary leap far ahead of a any thing so far. Leave behind DNA and a carbon based life form, pass self awareness over to something which can survive deep space and make progress via logic instead of biological emotions.

Hand the keys over to the machines. Let them start evolving

We aren't going to make it, they might.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you. You don't have clue #1 about what my lifestyle is (ok you have one, I like boats), or what personal action I've taken, or what I'm prepared to give up, if it would make things better.

Your jab at Al Gore puts you firmly on the Ignorant Troll side of the denier cheering section. Enjoy the view.

CHECK OUT SUPER SMARTS ABOVE! I am refraining from posting my true thoughts here because my post will get reported and deleted

Now for your life styles, most could not give a damn about them. And to Gore--- the guy who made tons of money preaching while he lived an energy pig's life.

If all this "save the planet because Chicken Little got whacked in the head" eventually gets passed into environmental law, God help us. Yeah I know, split wood, not atoms and all the bull$hit.

STOP YOUR KNOW-IT ALL, PROGNOSTICATING PREACHING AND GET A LIFE!

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

When people fear things that are fantasy, they usually pay no attention to the things they should fear.

Back to the point I was making, there is no evidence to suggest that humans, as a species, are capable of influencing their development as a species. It appears to ,make no difference what we fear or don't fear as individuals.