Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Wow, so the big furnace in the sky does nothing. Who would have guessed?

Which one?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's absolutely true that there have been great strides made is reducing some pollutants. Our vehicles are vastly more efficient than they were decades ago, and many local water and air ways are cleaner now than they were in the 1970s/80s. Of course this just means we now buy more cars, have bigger houses, and more stuff. It's the Jevons paradox in action.

However, I was not referring to local pollution levels, but in overall resource usage. We in the rich developed world use a lot, and it continual increases. There was a brief reversal during the 2008 crash, but that quickly reversed itself. The trend continues upward.

My point in raising this is that you often read that the problem is overpopulation, and luckily that's not our problem. "It's those folks, over there who are having too many babies. They're to blame!" The real issue is unsustainable use of planetary resources. Population numbers drive this, but so does simple intensity of use. Population is expected to peak by mid to late 21st century, but our use of resources/capita keeps going up. And as countries like China and India transition into the "developed" club, they are following the same path.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...per_Capita.png

Probably the most relevant comment in both these threads so far, is the proposed solution, more proscription than prescription, that I, believe it or not, stole from the Reef Magnet (i.e. the 'opposition'), posting in the other current GW thread:
__________________

The actual problem: Increasing human population is consuming ever increasingly more natural resources. Existing financial models amplify this problem by relying upon growth financial quarter after financial quarter and promote exploitation and greed and rampant consumerism without consequence.

The actual solution: (in three parts):
1: Switch to new financial models that don't rely on constant growth and that can penalise exploitation whilst limiting profit grabbing greed. This might sound far fetched, but it isn't. Invest in economic science.

2: Without the need to constantly grow economies and reward profiteering, encourage reduced family size. Invest in family planning science.

3: Force all manufacturers to "resource" assess their products. For example a $50 blu-ray player that lasts 3 years before junking to landfill is worse than a $200 unit that lasts 10 years. Tax that $50 dollar unit so it becomes less economical than the $200 one to buy or ban it altogether. Higher prices for long lasting field serviceable goods would have have a dramatic effect on the issue by discouraging the rampant consumer society we now have in the first and, increasingly, third worlds. Invest in resource management science.

Yep, I know it sounds like a loony rave, but better than nuttin'

___________________________

The idea of infinite economic growth on a finite planet is obviously ridiculous.

I heard the first part of RM's solution about 4-5 years ago in a Harper's article, but I can't remember the name of the article or the economist who wrote it. The author went into much more detail about the hows and whys, and it made a lot of sense then, as it does now, even in RM's abbreviated presentation.

Item 2 is also a good idea, and is currently being addressed by many organizations around the world, though there is a significant amount of resistance. The question is how fast population growth can be slowed. Last I heard, the world wide average was something like 2.2, which still yields high growth. Seems I remember the number for stabilization in about 5 years as something like .75. People have long life spans and they're growing longer everywhere.

I really like number three, but oddly enough, it seem likely to be the hardest to impose, implement and regulate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

I really like number three, but oddly enough, it seem likely to be the hardest to impose, implement and regulate in a democratic, free-market society.

Fixed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by The Garbone

Reminds me of the famous 97% of scientists. Which when researched is 97% of 76 "climate change" scientist asked said it was an important subject. This gets warped to "all scientists" and then someone throws on 2% to get it to 99% so they can sound authoritative.

It's not quite that bad, but the best I can gather is that figuring out the actual consensus amongst the scientists has become a science unto itself. Many, many "studies" from various teams of "researchers," all trying to figure out what all the peer-reviewed articles actually said. Lots of studies do support the 97% and 99% numbers, incl. the one I was mistaken about earlier. But that seems to be on the question of whether AGW exists and whether it does or will have an effect on the environment. When you get into whether it will have a negative effect, a significantly negative effect, an effect that could negatively affect humans, or a catastrophic effect (citing just a few examples), then the research seems to get more nuanced and complicated. There are even studies that study what the actual authors of the articles believe their own articles said! But there does seem to be agreement that the trend over the past 10 years or so has been towards more general consensus, but there's confusion over exactly what that consensus really is. And, as usual, the commentary on what the "research" into this has concluded is itself biased, depending on the political orientation of the publication you're looking at.

OK, now that that's cleared up, I'm sure Jack or someone will jump all over this in less time than you can say A-L-I-T-E-R-A-C-Y. But my head is starting to hurt from trying to figure out the science that is supposed to support the consensus which unequivocally supports the . . . errrr . . . science?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

The idea of infinite economic growth on a finite planet is obviously ridiculous.

THIS is the core issue facing the developed world. Our so-called free market economy (who is free?) is a ponzi scheme. Perpetual growth in a finite system is irrational, and inevitably doomed. The fact is, it doesn't have to be this way.

An economy is simply a description of the way resources are distributed in a community. Growth and profit are not necessary. There are other ways. But those that currently sit at the top like it very much, and will do much to maintain the status quo. This is why Man-made climate change is so threatening to them. Accepting the consequences of it fundamentally challenges the status quo.

[Delancey]

Damn. You guys are still at it? Climate change won't matter in twenty years because everyone will be bored to death of the same old same old. Go sailing once why don't ya?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

All was well and natural cycles did their part of keeping CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppm for over 800,000 years. During that time human beings evolved and domesticated plants suitable to that environment. During that time natural cycles like the Milankovitch cycles, would trigger warming releasing CO2 resulting in a positive feedback. There was a stable system in equilibrium.

Then in the mid 18th century we increased anthropogenic carbon emissions from 3 million tonnes per annum to almost 10 billion tonnes per annum. We were the trigger that added CO2. That increased CO2 levels by about 40% to over 400 ppm, a level not seen for for 3 - 5 million years. That meesed up the equilibrium and system is now unstable.

I know you know this, but might be worth mentioning that there was no way to measure such things in the mid-18th century, nor did anyone care to. So there are no [U]actual[U] baseline measurements, only estimates. Those estimates are, in turn, used to create computer simulated models that are supposed to predict what happened up until the time that technology afforded the use of actual data. And now those same models are used to try and predict what will happen in the future. But according to the article that Third Day so graciously provided, scientists recently discovered some previously unaccounted for "variables" (aerosols) that changed the future estimate calculations, this time by underreporting the amount of estimated warming.

So what additional variables can we now expect down the road, and how do we know if they will raise or lower the temperature estimates going forward? With the cited improvements in technology over the past 10 years, scientists now probably have no way of even knowing what such "variables" may be.

Hey, what could go wrong?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm convinced because the climate scientists are convinced. If your position requires you to reject what the overwhelming majority of subject-matter experts have said, after it's passed full scientific deliberation, peer reviews, outside reviews, etc, you need to own that, and the implications of it.

There's nothing complex or nuanced about that part. There isn't a genuine scientific debate about the finding of AGW, just one between advocates for and against. Only one of those positions has the science behind it.

Does that mean I can expect the kind of "undercover sting" operation to steal and then disclose my personal e-mails of the type that Greenpeace foisted on Dr. Happer? Like me, after all, there's been no evidence presented that this Princeton professor emeritus was "for sale or rent" by any energy co., "faked" peer review for a position paper that doesn't otherwise require it, or violated any IRS requirements or other laws since disclosure of charitable donors -- whether through another IRS recognized charitable entity called DonorsTrust or not -- is not required.

No, the only evidence of Dr. Happer's "offense" thus far was to agree with the position of an apparently small number of energy cos. that CO2 should not be reduced, even though he resisted any effort by those same cos. to de-regulate harmful pollutants through their emissions. But unlike an energy co. that may just want to minimize taxes & regulations on fossil fuels, Dr. Happer believes CO2 is beneficial to plant life and the overall environment, and should not therefore be restricted.

Now I don't know if the good doc is a genius or a quack, and would have no way of knowing whether his CO2 theories are brilliant or moronic. But thus far I'm seeing his privacy invaded by guys who are much better at chasing down whalers, and by people who want to defame him personally rather than challenge his ideas. Then again, I could probably just save Greenpeace a lot of their resources by turning myself into the NY State Speech Police for some jail time.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

THIS is the core issue facing the developed world. Our so-called free market economy (who is free?) is a ponzi scheme. Perpetual growth in a finite system is irrational, and inevitably doomed. The fact is, it doesn't have to be this way.

An economy is simply a description of the way resources are distributed in a community. Growth and profit are not necessary. There are other ways. But those that currently sit at the top like it very much, and will do much to maintain the status quo. This is why Man-made climate change is so threatening to them. Accepting the consequences of it fundamentally challenges the status quo.

Pretty sure those "other ways" have been tried and failed a number of times in the past hundred years or so Mike! The problem seems to be that someone has to be at the top distributing those resources to a community, and if that someone is a human being it more often than not doesn't work out too well. I'll take regulated capitalism thanks, and debate how much regulation is necessary or desirable. Humans may have evolved a bit, but I don't think in general they've overcome basic instincts such as greed, corruption, and the quest for power.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Does that mean I can expect the kind of "undercover sting" operation to steal and then disclose my personal e-mails of the type that Greenpeace foisted on Dr. Happer? Like me, after all, there's been no evidence presented that this Princeton professor emeritus was "for sale or rent" by any energy co., "faked" peer review for a position paper that doesn't otherwise require it, or violated any IRS requirements or other laws since disclosure of charitable donors -- whether through another IRS recognized charitable entity called DonorsTrust or not -- is not required.

No, the only evidence of Dr. Happer's "offense" thus far was to agree with the position of an apparently small number of energy cos. that CO2 should not be reduced, even though he resisted any effort by those same cos. to de-regulate harmful pollutants through their emissions. But unlike an energy co. that may just want to minimize taxes & regulations on fossil fuels, Dr. Happer believes CO2 is beneficial to plant life and the overall environment, and should not therefore be restricted.

Now I don't know if the good doc is a genius or a quack, and would have no way of knowing whether his CO2 theories are brilliant or moronic. But thus far I'm seeing his privacy invaded by guys who are much better at chasing down whalers, and by people who want to defame him personally rather than challenge his ideas. Then again, I could probably just save Greenpeace a lot of their resources by turning myself into the NY State Speech Police for some jail time.

One guy. The conclusion of AGW must be upended because of what Greenpeace (advocacy group, not science body, remember) did to one guy?

The non-scandal referred to as "Climategate", where outsiders tried, and failed, to show that the data were improperly used, similarly arose from an email theft. There's also a shitload of occasions where outside actors made every effort to harrass and thwart many climate scientists from working or speaking.

I personally think that using any scientist as a political football is repellent. But only the anti-AGW side is trying to imply that the whole field, and the scientific process itself, are less than honourable.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Opps....
More of what you know to be true is wrong?
Nuke Pro: Climate Gate, and a Marxist Scissors Strategy, A brilliant Post from UK News Site

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Opps....
More of what you know to be true is wrong?
Nuke Pro: Climate Gate, and a Marxist Scissors Strategy, A brilliant Post from UK News Site

I love it. Both sides turn out to be wrong, and the geniuses who blew it all off and went sailing will get all the credit. Brilliant!

[StuM]

Geez, I've been away for 9 days, it's still going strong as ever and no one's opinion has been changed an iota. What a surprise.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by Exile

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbunyard
I really like number three, but oddly enough, it seem likely to be the hardest to impose, implement and regulate in a democratic, free-market society.

Fixed.

I don't disagree with your 'fix,' but I do wonder where in the world there is a "democratic, free-market society." Seems like an oxymoron. One might say that Somalia is a free-market society, but it is hardly democratic.

Also, I wonder how a free-market society justifies its consequences to future people. For instance, before the EPA, we had awful pollution in the USA. It was so bad that we had to impose regulations. Now we are fairly clean, but we will be forced to impose regulations on greenhouse gas emissions because some people refuse to behave responsibly on their on accord. Had we maintained the freedom to pollute with impunity, we would have worse air than China and worse water than Brasil.

There are just two reasons for regulations: One is safety. The other is that somebody acted like an a-hole, and that action affected lots of other people.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by StuM

Geez, I've been away for 9 days, it's still going strong as ever and no one's opinion has been changed an iota. What a surprise.

Which is why I take my approach with these threads....its all about having fun and a good laugh because you can't show facts that tells someone their religion is false and expect them to belive it.