Climate Change?

[killdozzer]

I'd like to chime in on this. Glad to see it is not closed yet. I'll write a couple of points which I consider grown up and reasonable, I'll try to say why I see them that way next to every one of them, first and most obvious reason would be the fact that I'm not trying to skew my opinions to fit an already poised political opinion.

Some of these might leave some of you with sores, but that’s not because I wanted to leave you with sores.

Most of these are mine, not heard from an involved side or party. Meaning I actually sat down and gave them some time to see how they hold up against some probing.

The most important; arriving at an answer to the question what should we do (this should also show that OP's question is irrelevant).

This is actually a simple question of deciding upon an action before having a clear and full picture or all the answers if you will. Over time I accepted the fact that Earth is warming up due to human actions, but I still use this particular formula as it would work even if I didn’t accept aforementioned fact. It is starting from a zero position. We can jokingly call it Kruno’s Theorem:

These are the scenarios (taking all of them into account, supposing we don’t know):

The Earth is heating up and it’s human’s fault.

The Earth is heating up and it’s not human fault.

The Earth is not heating up.

These are the actions:

Do something

Do nothing

These are the results:

• The Earth is heating up, it is human fault and we do something – we save what’s left to save.
• The Earth is heating up, it is not human fault and we do something – we clean up a huge portion of our environment and enter the next supposed ice age way cleaner and with much better chance of thriving. We also get rid of much suffering and destruction our filthy economy brings (it is never all of it, but as much as possible).
• The Earth is heating up, it is human fault and we do nothing – we directly suffer all the consequences of our filthy ways (keep in mind; the most responsible will suffer the least), this way we’re no better than a virus; eat while there’s something to eat and die out afterwards.
• The Earth is heating up, it is not human fault and we do nothing – we die out a thousand times more horrible deaths, disease ridden, starved and parched
• The Earth is not heating up and we do something – cleaning and going green is not all about C02, greenhouse and ice caps, there are innumerable other benefits we would all enjoy (yes, the deniers as well)
• The Earth is not heating up and we do nothing – we still lose a lot of what’s sustaining us and we still poison ourselves, further our diseases and suffering since cleaning up is not all about global warming, but living better in most aspects

In every scenario doing something trumps (pardon the pun) doing nothing.

What’s particularly sweet about Kruno’s Theorem; this type of risk assessment belongs to the holy dogmas of the most responsible polluters, it is done exactly the same way Naish’s Prisoners Dilemma was used for a lot of what libertarians preach. So, YES it is beating them with their own weapons.

There is NO need to wait for the jury to come back in (and I never thought they were out in the first place). We can act now on a mere risk assessment. There is NO need to wait for any results and it is COMPLETELY irrelevant that we don’t have a longer period of measuring the emissions.

Cow’s farthing; I can’t, no matter how much I try, consider anyone who still shouts this argument to be even of average intelligence. First of all; cow’s farting is a man made emission – they are there because we eat them. For comparison, polar bear farting is a non issue because we didn’t bread millions of these beasts, because we don’t eat them. – I think it’s grown up to admit that all proxy C02 is still our C02.

Furthermore, this is so obviously made over a single afternoon in a “merchant of doubt” PR agency with only 5% of someone’s effort. Argument goes: all of what we do is not enough to make an impact, but some cows farting, is. Yeah, right! Not falling for such nonsense and, basically non-arguments, just to desperately hold on to your political stance, I would see as grown up.

China’s emissions are our emissions, and by the same logic they are mostly US emissions. Outsourcing is as American as apple pie so just fess up, it’s still your mess. If you want China to produce all of your iphones, imacs, all of your tomorrow’s garbage and everything from your shoe lace to the most complex machines (mine as well to an extent) then the emissions are yours as well. They are a part of your holy mode of production regardless of whether that mode of production left for China. Having guts to admit this to yourself, I would see as grown up.

It is not just cars. All this fractioning of what we actually do is really silly in this day and age. We are doing much damage on all fronts; cars, coal, short expiry dates, deforestation, destruction of biodiversity... all of it. And it’s all connected. More C02 is not just more C02, it is more C02 and less forest to absorb it. It’s all of that.

Also, the gas in the so called green-house is not being heated up only by sun anymore. Google maps made this possible to see (another small victory since nothing is as libertarian as silicone valley); if you were to add up all the asphalt we laid in 20th an 21st it would amount to an entire continent of nothing but asphalt. FOR THE LOVE OF ME, I can’t see how someone would still even consider that a planet with no asphalt from a century and a half ago would be the same system and behave the same way as a planet with an entire continent being just a huge, flat slab of asphalt. (Is there some sort of "endless absorption theory" I'm not aware of??)

This planet is, in fact, our last frontier. It is a frame of all our actions. Throwing sand in someone’s eyes to obscure this fact is just braindead.

 

[highfigh]

@highfigh – If this is what you meant when you first mentioned brewing and baking as sources of CO2, then I previously got what you meant all wrong. It could be considered as a good way to proceed.

That's exactly what I meant.

 

[highfigh]

I didn't buy the article but here is an abstract I found for bread carbon footprint in less than five minutes from one of the most reputable journals on the planet:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants201712

Real information isn't too hard to find if you take a little effort to look for it and don't rely on biased sources with a political ax to grind. That is the whole point of academic freedom and the disturbing part of the denial of science going on currently.

Who's grinding a political axe? I mentioned yeast. However, since we're dealing with food,we could add carbonated beverages, whether in bottles & cans or from a machine uses bottled CO2 to get it from the cooler to the glass or cup. Some use Nitrogen, but that's not the majority.

 

[Swerd]

That's exactly what I meant.

If that's what you meant, you certainly didn't say it.

How could any reader know whether you meant something genuine, or only meant to interfere with this conversation by making a trivial and unsupported claim? That's how I read your comment. Cynical opponents of global warming, who support the coal and oil industries' efforts to do nothing at all about global warming have done this before. This was described by killdozzer:

… Furthermore, this is so obviously made over a single afternoon in a “merchant of doubt” PR agency with only 5% of someone’s effort. Argument goes: all of what we do is not enough to make an impact, but some cows farting, is. Yeah, right! Not falling for such nonsense and, basically non-arguments, just to desperately hold on to your political stance, I would see as grown up.

How could any reader tell whether you meant something serious, as opposed to something distracting and foolish such as cow farts? There is no doubt that methane gas, molecule for molecule, is a more potent global warming gas than CO2. But the total amounts of methane vs. CO2, and their contribution to global warming, matter more. Similarly, it matters if beer and bread making generate a large or small percent of the total production of CO2. That remains unanswered in this thread, by you or anyone else. You raised the question. If you are serious about it, why didn't you go about trying to answer it?

Where was any reference to that article from the Brewer's Association, or another article similar to that?

What the article by the Brewer's Association had to say was different. This is the article mentioned by lovinthehd in post #72, that I read & responded to in post #76. It showed how CO2 generated could become a cost similar to total energy consumption during beer production. And it raised the question over why isn't there a tax, or other method to raise the cost of CO2 production. Raising the cost of producing CO2 would cause beer brewers, and other companies as well, to change how they handle processes that generate CO2. All that is reasonable and probably beneficial. Again, such a solution is opposed by the coal & oil producing industries and their hired politicians.

Yes, global warming is a loaded topic. It easily provokes strong reactions among us. If you don't intend to provoke such reactions, I suggest you word your posts so people don't misinterpret them.

 

[kystorm]

I'd like to chime in on this. Glad to see it is not closed yet. I'll write a couple of points which I consider grown up and reasonable, I'll try to say why I see them that way next to every one of them, first and most obvious reason would be the fact that I'm not trying to skew my opinions to fit an already poised political opinion.

Some of these might leave some of you with sores, but that’s not because I wanted to leave you with sores.

Most of these are mine, not heard from an involved side or party. Meaning I actually sat down and gave them some time to see how they hold up against some probing.

The most important; arriving at an answer to the question what should we do (this should also show that OP's question is irrelevant).

This is actually a simple question of deciding upon an action before having a clear and full picture or all the answers if you will. Over time I accepted the fact that Earth is warming up due to human actions, but I still use this particular formula as it would work even if I didn’t accept aforementioned fact. It is starting from a zero position. We can jokingly call it Kruno’s Theorem:

These are the scenarios (taking all of them into account, supposing we don’t know):

The Earth is heating up and it’s human’s fault.

The Earth is heating up and it’s not human fault.

The Earth is not heating up.

These are the actions:

Do something

Do nothing

These are the results:

• The Earth is heating up, it is human fault and we do something – we save what’s left to save.
• The Earth is heating up, it is not human fault and we do something – we clean up a huge portion of our environment and enter the next supposed ice age way cleaner and with much better chance of thriving. We also get rid of much suffering and destruction our filthy economy brings (it is never all of it, but as much as possible).
• The Earth is heating up, it is human fault and we do nothing – we directly suffer all the consequences of our filthy ways (keep in mind; the most responsible will suffer the least), this way we’re no better than a virus; eat while there’s something to eat and die out afterwards.
• The Earth is heating up, it is not human fault and we do nothing – we die out a thousand times more horrible deaths, disease ridden, starved and parched
• The Earth is not heating up and we do something – cleaning and going green is not all about C02, greenhouse and ice caps, there are innumerable other benefits we would all enjoy (yes, the deniers as well)
• The Earth is not heating up and we do nothing – we still lose a lot of what’s sustaining us and we still poison ourselves, further our diseases and suffering since cleaning up is not all about global warming, but living better in most aspects

In every scenario doing something trumps (pardon the pun) doing nothing.

What’s particularly sweet about Kruno’s Theorem; this type of risk assessment belongs to the holy dogmas of the most responsible polluters, it is done exactly the same way Naish’s Prisoners Dilemma was used for a lot of what libertarians preach. So, YES it is beating them with their own weapons.

There is NO need to wait for the jury to come back in (and I never thought they were out in the first place). We can act now on a mere risk assessment. There is NO need to wait for any results and it is COMPLETELY irrelevant that we don’t have a longer period of measuring the emissions.

Cow’s farthing; I can’t, no matter how much I try, consider anyone who still shouts this argument to be even of average intelligence. First of all; cow’s farting is a man made emission – they are there because we eat them. For comparison, polar bear farting is a non issue because we didn’t bread millions of these beasts, because we don’t eat them. – I think it’s grown up to admit that all proxy C02 is still our C02.

Furthermore, this is so obviously made over a single afternoon in a “merchant of doubt” PR agency with only 5% of someone’s effort. Argument goes: all of what we do is not enough to make an impact, but some cows farting, is. Yeah, right! Not falling for such nonsense and, basically non-arguments, just to desperately hold on to your political stance, I would see as grown up.

China’s emissions are our emissions, and by the same logic they are mostly US emissions. Outsourcing is as American as apple pie so just fess up, it’s still your mess. If you want China to produce all of your iphones, imacs, all of your tomorrow’s garbage and everything from your shoe lace to the most complex machines (mine as well to an extent) then the emissions are yours as well. They are a part of your holy mode of production regardless of whether that mode of production left for China. Having guts to admit this to yourself, I would see as grown up.

It is not just cars. All this fractioning of what we actually do is really silly in this day and age. We are doing much damage on all fronts; cars, coal, short expiry dates, deforestation, destruction of biodiversity... all of it. And it’s all connected. More C02 is not just more C02, it is more C02 and less forest to absorb it. It’s all of that.

Also, the gas in the so called green-house is not being heated up only by sun anymore. Google maps made this possible to see (another small victory since nothing is as libertarian as silicone valley); if you were to add up all the asphalt we laid in 20th an 21st it would amount to an entire continent of nothing but asphalt. FOR THE LOVE OF ME, I can’t see how someone would still even consider that a planet with no asphalt from a century and a half ago would be the same system and behave the same way as a planet with an entire continent being just a huge, flat slab of asphalt. (Is there some sort of "endless absorption theory" I'm not aware of??)

This planet is, in fact, our last frontier. It is a frame of all our actions. Throwing sand in someone’s eyes to obscure this fact is just braindead.

When you mention doin something, can you elaborate alil bit? Most of the time when people talk bout doin something it always involves taking money from our pockets and giving it to an ever growing government that usually causes more problems than it fixes.

 

[highfigh]

If that's what you meant, you certainly didn't say it.

How could any reader know whether you meant something genuine, or only meant to interfere with this conversation by making a trivial and unsupported claim? That's how I read your comment. Cynical opponents of global warming, who support the coal and oil industries' efforts to do nothing at all about global warming have done this before. This was described by killdozzer:

How could any reader tell whether you meant something serious, as opposed to something distracting and foolish such as cow farts? There is no doubt that methane gas, molecule for molecule, is a more potent global warming gas than CO2. But the total amounts of methane vs. CO2, and their contribution to global warming, matter more. Similarly, it matters if beer and bread making generate a large or small percent of the total production of CO2. That remains unanswered in this thread, by you or anyone else. You raised the question. If you are serious about it, why didn't you go about trying to answer it?

Where was any reference to that article from the Brewer's Association, or another article similar to that?

What the article by the Brewer's Association had to say was different. This is the article mentioned by lovinthehd in post #72, that I read & responded to in post #76. It showed how CO2 generated could become a cost similar to total energy consumption during beer production. And it raised the question over why isn't there a tax, or other method to raise the cost of CO2 production. Raising the cost of producing CO2 would cause beer brewers, and other companies as well, to change how they handle processes that generate CO2. All that is reasonable and probably beneficial. Again, such a solution is opposed by the coal & oil producing industries and their hired politicians.

Yes, global warming is a loaded topic. It easily provokes strong reactions among us. If you don't intend to provoke such reactions, I suggest you word your posts so people don't misinterpret them.

When have I denied human involvement in this? Never. I have mentioned agriculture repeatedly- animals don't breed for slaughter or byproducts on their own, so it must be humans who are responsible. I have repeatedly written that lobbying needs to end and our politicians need to stop being whores- you must have missed that. I mention yeast and you wonder if it was a joke- whatever you infer from my comments is your problem, not mine.

 

[herbu]

Ah, your true colors appear. WTF does this statement have to do with global warming? And how are pollsters and climatologists related? ShadyJ was right...

True colors? Right. I don't accept as fact something just because it is constantly repeated. If I did that, I would be a democrat. Sorry... just kidding. But don't you find it odd that 97-99% of scientists agree?

First I'd like to see that the sample was proper. Then I'd like to see EXACTLY what the statement was that they agreed on.

 

[herbu]

Too bad nobody wants to invest in Solar Roadways. Yes, replacing all of our roads would be insanely expensive and nobody would vote for it, but at least it's an option. They'd have to get their tech up to par before it'd be considered. Maybe someday.

Then Tesla has their Solar Roof project.

Assuming these ideas become viable (and cheap enough) that could potentially put a large dent in coal usage. The roads charging EVs is an added benefit.

I have a question about solar power and unintended consequences. Today there is a "normal" amount of heat/energy either absorbed or reflected by the earth. We like to say that solar energy is limitless, but when we actually remove more and more of the heat/energy at play in the solar cycle, what happens? I wonder what 97-99% of scientists would say. Wouldn't there be a point where some consequence became apparent? I wonder what that point is, and what the effect would be.

 

[herbu]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why some politicians (GOP politicians) refuse to consider this approach. Are they being paid by energy producers' lobbies to block such laws?

This regarding a CO2 tax. I understand the attraction of a new tax to you, but what would be the bottom line?
1. How much would it cost?
2. How much would it decrease CO2?
3. What effect would that amount of CO2 decrease have on the climate change?

 

[herbu]

Actually, no. It didn't come from a polling data but a researcher in Australia who reviewed peer papers and conclusions.
And, there was a second review by another person who wanted to replicate the study. His answer was 99.+ consensus.

And that's enough information for you to accept the "97%" figure as fact?

 

[panteragstk]

I have a question about solar power and unintended consequences. Today there is a "normal" amount of heat/energy either absorbed or reflected by the earth. We like to say that solar energy is limitless, but when we actually remove more and more of the heat/energy at play in the solar cycle, what happens? I wonder what 97-99% of scientists would say. Wouldn't there be a point where some consequence became apparent? I wonder what that point is, and what the effect would be.

No clue, but something very simple is that right now all the roads do is absorb heat and make everything around them hotter. If we could use that energy and dissipate it somehow (no clue if these solar roads intend to do that) it could potentially make large cities with tons of pavement MUCH cooler places to be.

Solar energy is limitless, but don't let that fool anyone into thinking that solar panels on someone's roof is enough to replace all of their other sources of electricity. The tech is getting better, but their meant to supplement current tech, not replace it. Wind is another that people tout as much cleaner. It is in a way, but not enough energy is generated for it to be viable.

In West Texas where my parents live there are tons of wind farms. Tons of those windmills aren't even moving. Not sure what the point of building a giant windmill that you aren't going to use is. Especially when those giant bird shredders only generate less than 5% of electricity. Seems like a waste.

 

[Irvrobinson]

True colors? Right. I don't accept as fact something just because it is constantly repeated. If I did that, I would be a democrat. Sorry... just kidding. But don't you find it odd that 97-99% of scientists agree?

First I'd like to see that the sample was proper. Then I'd like to see EXACTLY what the statement was that they agreed on.

What I meant by showing your true colors, herbu, was that your post decisively indicated that you were indeed trying to start the dumpster fire ShadyJ accused you of. Your reference to climate scientists and pollsters, not to mention your explicit derision of Democrats, indicates you have no real interest in whether or not global warming is real and what the root causes are. It's just the same old political hate speech from you.

And, no, I don't find it odd that 99% of climate scientists agree about global warming and the impact from increased greenhouse gas levels when the data is so compelling.

 

[Swerd]

This regarding a CO2 tax. I understand the attraction of a new tax to you, but what would be the bottom line?
1. How much would it cost?
2. How much would it decrease CO2?
3. What effect would that amount of CO2 decrease have on the climate change?

Those questions might be reasonable ones to ask, but only if they come from those who are truely concerned with such financial questions.

Prior to 2017, the GOP consistently opposed increased government revenues and increased spending while favoring lower federal taxes. Since 2017, the Trump White House and GOP-dominated Congress (until 2019) have abandoned that long-held GOP position. Instead, they favor cutting taxes while increasing federal spending. This isn't just a major policy reversal that abandons long-held party principles, it's downright reckless.

 

[Swerd]

I have a question about solar power and unintended consequences. Today there is a "normal" amount of heat/energy either absorbed or reflected by the earth. We like to say that solar energy is limitless, but when we actually remove more and more of the heat/energy at play in the solar cycle, what happens? I wonder what 97-99% of scientists would say. Wouldn't there be a point where some consequence became apparent? I wonder what that point is, and what the effect would be.

Let me get this straight. You're worried about using too much solar energy? Why aren't you also worried about burning too much coal and oil?

panteragstk has it right. By the time solar energy reaches Earth, it's no longer potential energy as is coal & oil, it's already kinetic energy. It's up to us whether we convert some to electricity or let it all be converted to other forms, mainly heat. If there is a major climate-related issue with doing that, it's not like we aren't already on the lookout for that.

 

[highfigh]

No clue, but something very simple is that right now all the roads do is absorb heat and make everything around them hotter. If we could use that energy and dissipate it somehow (no clue if these solar roads intend to do that) it could potentially make large cities with tons of pavement MUCH cooler places to be.

Solar energy is limitless, but don't let that fool anyone into thinking that solar panels on someone's roof is enough to replace all of their other sources of electricity. The tech is getting better, but their meant to supplement current tech, not replace it. Wind is another that people tout as much cleaner. It is in a way, but not enough energy is generated for it to be viable.

Solar energy can be the only source, but the cost needs to be justified an accepted. Johnson Controls world HQ has a solar farm at the NE corner of their property and it supplies 100% of the energy needed for all of the facilities including HVAC, lighting, the research facility and the battery division (recently sold). IKEA has solar panels on the roof of their new store in SE Wisconsin, even though WE Energies isn't solar-friendly and the utility wants to collect from ALL solar users, whether connected to the grid, or not, and whether they sell surplus energy to the utility, or not. They used to pay a decent price for this, but it's far less now. According to the link, some of the corporate solar energy added last was around 325MW.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/28/10-massive-corporations-going-big-on-solar-power.html

 

[Dan]

"Who's grinding a political axe? " +

I reread my post and I certainly wasn't accusing highfigh of that. I was talking about the "scientific community" who produces biased results because they are working for the energy industry or their political lackeys. These are the only people that I have read studies from that seem to disagree with the vast majority of academics who think this is man made. I was trying to make a point about the necessity for academic independent research and how the current right wing war on science will have a negative impact on our research into this and many other problems. All reputable scientists in America are now required to give disclosures of conflict of interest when discussing their research. I certainly do especially when I discuss work that I have done with defense dept funding. Those who work for the energy industry never seem to quite divulge that.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I have a question about solar power and unintended consequences. Today there is a "normal" amount of heat/energy either absorbed or reflected by the earth. We like to say that solar energy is limitless, but when we actually remove more and more of the heat/energy at play in the solar cycle, what happens? I wonder what 97-99% of scientists would say. Wouldn't there be a point where some consequence became apparent? I wonder what that point is, and what the effect would be.

You can't be serious with this question. Even if we covered 1% of the land area of the earth with solar panels, it's still insignificant, and 1% is a huge area compared to economic reality. The Earth's surface area is about 197 million square miles, and 29% is land, so 1% of the land area is about 571,000 square miles of solar panels. And that would still be only 0.0029% percent of the total surface area. NFW for significant solar absorption impact, and NFW for economic feasibility. To put this into perspective, Alaska has an area of 663,300 square miles. Cloud cover variances are far more significant.

 

[Ponzio]

You can't be serious with this question.

Oh he's serious alright.

Short of a monsoon coming down on his backyard patio, you're not going to convince him.

I've had these discussions with friends who are climate deniers. It's like pissing in the wind ... no pun intended.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And that's enough information for you to accept the "97%" figure as fact?

It is certainly better than the alternative.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...First I'd like to see that the sample was proper. Then I'd like to see EXACTLY what the statement was that they agreed on.

Did you even try to research where that 97% came from or how it was derived?

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2015/11/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming/?/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#dfaf30b11576
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467617707079?journalCode=bsta

Probably need to do nothing and see when all the answer is in hand.



Oh, wait, by then, too late, cannot stop it.