The Reef Ain't Dead

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not for another couple of days will the climate "crisis" begin anew Lester, but I'm sure the wait has been excruciating. And as the pandemic begins to hopefully fade, the now famous adage about never letting a crisis go to waste will be in full view. Politicians have to get re-elected after all, and the media always needs something to boost their ratings. As for the detractors, we can see that the throngs of followers are already dutifully learning the new lingo to deal with "those" people. I mean c'mon man, just tell 'em that's malarkey!

Call it a crisis or not, I don't care. It is a serious problem that gets worse and harder to solve every day. It has been a serious problem for years. The increased attention is due to the fact that it has been intermittently ignored or dismissed.
I take it the implication here is to suggest this is just partisan politics and not a serious and remediable problem. As the Clash* said "Wrong 'em boyo"

*Originally Clive Alphonso and the Rulers

[Tillikum]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

In chronological order, earliest to most recent.

2 + 2 = 4

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (but, of course, that only's true if one understands, at least, the concept of '2'.)

The earth is a sphere (actually an oblate spheroid, but we didn't know that until comparatively recently.)

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though there is hot 'debate' on the subject with the FES.)

Gravity is real.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though we understand virtually nothing about it.)

Minute biological forms can cause disease (germ-theory of disease.)

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (unless one's a member of a certain sub-group of
a privileged, parasitic Western civilizationites.)

Species are formed by minute biological changes over time (evolution).

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though how these changes are brought about is only beginning to be understood.)

The vacuum speed of light is fixed and cannot be exceeded.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though we can't really say why that should be so.)

Climate change is real and human's role in the current hyper-acceleration of it is supported by an increasingly overwhelming body of fact and analysis.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though a decreasing minority of misinformed individuals, vested-interest entities and myopic, well-funded politicians continue to propagandize the idea that there is 'debate' on the subject.)

And on and on and on...

I'm about to recommend an addition to the DSM-6. 'Infantile Strawmannery'.

"Strawmannery" would be one description of your comparing what are now orthodoxies, but when first proposed were heresies, (when not merely ridiculed or ignored by the scientific consensus of their times), with the current "consensus" purchased with massive amounts of public and private money and concerted suppression of dissent in a media now far more pervasive and powerful than at any previous time in history, and with ownership concentration similar to totalitarian societies.

Your suggestion is, I suggest, a simple inversion of the historical reality, and of course the perpetual facts ("Laws??") of human behaviour so painfully exposed in the scientific histories that Boatman61 linked to.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Call it a crisis or not, I don't care. It is a serious problem that gets worse and harder to solve every day. It has been a serious problem for years. The increased attention is due to the fact that it has been intermittently ignored or dismissed.
I take it the implication here is to suggest this is just partisan politics and not a serious and remediable problem. As the Clash* said "Wrong 'em boyo"

*Originally Clive Alphonso and the Rulers

You are incorrect about my "implication." If we abide by that part of the science which at least seems somewhat settled, then I would agree that anytime we are potentially altering a natural process as all-encompassing as our climate it is a serious problem. As are many other serious problems we have, and will have, over the consumption of a finite resource that releases all sorts of harmful crap into our air and waters (incl. petroleum derived plastic). But the harmful impact of these other serious problems are largely proven and therefore not controversial, unlike AGW which, even if we assume exists, may or may not have the detrimental impacts many fear. Or at least a level of impacts which necessitate many of the drastic remedies some are so strident about.

From what I can see anyway, partisan politics and the subjective biases it creates is what drives the alarmism and absolutism, and not necessarily the "science" as a whole. It's just as much of a disservice to the science to dismiss it because, as you say, you don't like its conclusions, as it is to endorse it selectively for the conclusions you do like. Amongst actual climate scientists, even the most diehard skeptics agree that AGW exists and is likely having some level of impact. That's serious. But to the extent there's a "consensus" on AGW's impacts being "significant," there's hardly agreement on how much hardship and disruption to the world's economies is justified based on the current level of scientific understanding.

Meanwhile, the US leads the world in reducing emissions, followed closely by the EU, but those reductions pale in comparison to the dramatic increases from the developing world, most notably China and India. I'm not sure what the answer is, but calling it a "crisis," in my mind anyway, only increases the lack of credibility the issue already suffers from in many quarters, and will only produce policies that are illusory, symbolic and likely harmful. Instead, our leaders should start leveling with the citizenry about the seriousness of the issue in a truthful and realistic manner. Only then can we formulate rational policies which responsibly weigh the costs, risks and benefits of further reductions.

[boatman61]

What tickles me about political response to the so called AGW 'Crisis' is the solution they apply is not shutting down industries ability to produce and sell harmful products such as certain chemical fertilizers or single use plastic packaging for example..
Instead it's Green Taxes on the population and the Joke known as Carbon Credits meaning a country can buy an increased pollution allowance from a low carbon country bypassing any limits.
As ridiculous as a drunk driver telling a traffic cop it's not a problem as two of his passengers are sober..

[AKA-None]

Correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I’m aware the only whole planet model might be sim earth.
Isn’t a planetary eco system complex with lots of apparently unconnected things dependent upon other things?

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

In chronological order, earliest to most recent.

2 + 2 = 4

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (but, of course, that only's true if one understands, at least, the concept of '2'.)


The earth is a sphere (actually an oblate spheroid, but we didn't know that until comparatively recently.)

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though there is hot 'debate' on the subject with the FES.)


Gravity is real.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though we understand virtually nothing about it.)


Minute biological forms can cause disease (germ-theory of disease.)


THE DEBATE IS OVER! (unless one's a member of a certain sub-group of
a privileged, parasitic Western civilizationites.)


Species are formed by minute biological changes over time (evolution).

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though how these changes are brought about is only beginning to be understood.)


The vacuum speed of light is fixed and cannot be exceeded.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though we can't really say why that should be so.)


Climate change is real and human's role in the current hyper-acceleration of it is supported by an increasingly overwhelming body of fact and analysis.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! (though a decreasing minority of misinformed individuals, vested-interest entities and myopic, well-funded politicians continue to propagandize the idea that there is 'debate' on the subject.)


And on and on and on...


I'm about to recommend an addition to the DSM-6. 'Infantile Strawmannery'.

Here here!
Have never heard/seen the word 'strawmannery' before but that totally nails it. Better than my framing of these denier posts as 'diversionary'.
thanks

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Meanwhile, the US leads the world in reducing emissions

Sort of, if one compares countries and absolute amounts.

The US reduction was primarily achieved through the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. Mostly because of cheaper gas through fracking.

Transportation is now the largest US emitter of greenhouse gases, and its output has been trending upward since about 2012.

If one compares the EU vs the US, for 2019 the EU led the US in reduction by absolute amount. Comparing rate of reduction, the EU reduced by 5%, the US reduced by 2.9%. Germany alone achieved a reduction of 8%.

The US & Canada per capita rates of emission are still 3x that of France, 2.5x that of China, 1.5x that of Germany and almost 10x that of India.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sort of, if one compares countries and absolute amounts.

The US reduction was primarily achieved through the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. Mostly because of cheaper gas through fracking.

Transportation is now the largest US emitter of greenhouse gases, and its output has been trending upward since about 2012.

If one compares the EU vs the US, for 2019 the EU led the US in reduction by absolute amount. Comparing rate of reduction, the EU reduced by 5%, the US reduced by 2.9%. Germany alone achieved a reduction of 8%.

The US & Canada per capita rates of emission are still 3x that of France, 2.5x that of China, 1.5x that of Germany and almost 10x that of India.

The often forgotten World leader... https://inhabitat.com/uk-carbon-emis...n-past-decade/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by boatman61

What tickles me about political response to the so called AGW 'Crisis' is the solution they apply is not shutting down industries ability to produce and sell harmful products such as certain chemical fertilizers or single use plastic packaging for example..
Instead it's Green Taxes on the population and the Joke known as Carbon Credits meaning a country can buy an increased pollution allowance from a low carbon country bypassing any limits.

Hi Boatman
Cap and trade was a decent start at what you are hoping for - but shot down. What is needed is to structure economic incentives for conservation and no (or lowest possible) carbon energy sources for our needs. For certain, central govt micromanagement of carbon emissions would be a nightmare. What we need is the simplest possible economic balancing to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (which are huge) and incentivize alternatives. If current market distortions in favor of fossil fuels were corrected, human ingenuity would blaze the trail.
What most businesses want is stability. They want to know what the regulatory and tax structure will be long term so they can plan and grow. My bet would be that even the fossil fuel industry would jump in big time if they had confidence about the long-term framework. Exxon probably doesn't care that much about oil and gas. I bet they would be just as happy if they could make the same amount of profits from carbon-free energy. Looks like most auto companies are just as happy making electrics or plug in hybrids as gas guzzlers. Give 'em a shot at it. The free market can do amazing things if we level the playing field.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by boatman61

The often forgotten World leader... https://inhabitat.com/uk-carbon-emis...n-past-decade/

"The U.K. has also seen a faster decline in emissions compared to any other major economy."

Indeed. Well done.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Transportation is now the largest US emitter of greenhouse gases[/URL], and its output has been trending upward since about 2012.

Thanks for this Lake-Effect. I thought residential heating and cooling were higher, but I looked up several sources and you are right.

That means a lot of progress could be made by incentivizing hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, and electrics. Not for all obviously, for many specific transport uses you will need petrol cars for a good while. But for the hordes of commuters - definitely.

I used to have a Toyota Highlander. Burned probably 800 gallons of gas a year. Switched to a RAV4 plug in hybrid, now burning probably <150 gallons a year.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sort of, if one compares countries and absolute amounts.

The US reduction was primarily achieved through the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. Mostly because of cheaper gas through fracking.

Transportation is now the largest US emitter of greenhouse gases, and its output has been trending upward since about 2012.

If one compares the EU vs the US, for 2019 the EU led the US in reduction by absolute amount. Comparing rate of reduction, the EU reduced by 5%, the US reduced by 2.9%. Germany alone achieved a reduction of 8%.

The US & Canada per capita rates of emission are still 3x that of France, 2.5x that of China, 1.5x that of Germany and almost 10x that of India.

LOL!! I'm pretty sure the atmosphere's favorite metric is in absolute amounts, i.e. total reductions. But use whichever one is more consoling for you, especially if it comes from an article that attacks "right-leaning websites" as many times as yours does.

As for per capita analyses, more affluent societies and their people generally consume more energy. Best to get over it. Not just talking about owners of sportfish boats, SUV's, palatial houses, or the other bogeymen some like to point out to make themselves feel better about their own consumption. And oftentimes the most affluent who consume the most energy are the same people who love to preach, proselytize, and shame others. Most people aren't swayed by this combination of moralizing and hypocrisy, even though they may give it lip service to "fit in." In any event, it's never going to achieve productive results on a larger scale.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

LOL!! I'm pretty sure the atmosphere's favorite metric is in absolute amounts, i.e. total reductions. But use whichever one is more consoling for you, especially if it comes from an article that attacks "right-leaning websites" as many times as yours does.

As for per capita analyses, more affluent societies and their people generally consume more energy. Best to get over it. Not just talking about owners of sportfish boats, SUV's, palatial houses, or the other bogeymen some like to point out to make themselves feel better about their own consumption. And oftentimes the most affluent who consume the most energy are the same people who love to preach, proselytize, and shame others. Most people aren't swayed by this combination of moralizing and hypocrisy, even though they may give it lip service to "fit in." In any event, it's never going to achieve productive results on a larger scale.

LOL back atcha.

If a 300 lb friend tells me they lost 20 lb, I'm gonna be positive and encouraging. But they're still obese, and shouldn't be pretending otherwise.

Of the stats I was looking at, the per capita emissions from France was the most interesting. A very high quality of life, at a third of our per capita emissions. Their use of nuclear is a key factor. Proof, if you need it, that excessive greenhouse gas emissions are not a necessary condition for, or byproduct of affluence.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

LOL back atcha.

If a 300 lb friend tells me they lost 20 lb, I'm gonna be positive and encouraging. But they're still obese, and shouldn't be pretending otherwise.

Of the stats I was looking at, the per capita emissions from France was the most interesting. A very high quality of life, at a third of our per capita emissions. Their use of nuclear is a key factor. Proof, if you need it, that excessive greenhouse gas emissions are not a necessary byproduct of affluence.

Never claimed GG emissions were a necessary byproduct of affluence, only energy consumption generally. But for most countries that means fossil fuels, so ergo. Shellenberger makes a lot of sense when he advocates for more nuclear as the most effective way of reducing fossil fuel emissions, and uses France as an example. Sounds like you've been reading up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Never claimed GG emissions were a necessary byproduct of affluence, only energy consumption generally. But for most countries that means fossil fuels, so ergo.

Countries can use their affluence to transition to cleaner and more sustainable practices. It's a choice that many have made.

Shellenberger makes a lot of sense when he advocates for more nuclear as the most effective way of reducing fossil fuel emissions, and uses France as an example. Sounds like you've been reading up.

I've always been pro nuclear power. But also anti-gluttony when it comes to conservation (remember? - the actual root of 'conservative') and sustainability.

Maybe Shellenberger got it from me.