# Lest you thought that whole climate thing was solved already....



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

There is a new article in New York magazine that has made a stir:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

it deals with what the Earth would be like in 2100 in some approximation of the 'business as usual' fossil carbon usage scenario, which is like a 4-6°C temp increase.  Not the sort of thing anyone would like.

So, on the one hand, you have people saying...well, if we do COP21 (Paris) then we keep to 2°C maybe a little more (or less) and the worst (as in the article) won't happen.  And then maybe its irresponsible to **scare** people with these >4°C, 2100 scenarios.

I myself could be called Pollyanna.  I tend to be an optimist.  This thread is my penance.

It is NOT a bad thing to point out that those folks that currently are speaking out against action like COP21 or the CPP plan, or renewable energy or EVs or all the above initiatives, are basically advocating a CRAZY position that science says will yield a rather unpleasant outcome in 2100.  One that any optimist would say will never be allowed to happen....but which nonetheless MANY people with money and power are driving us towards full speed ahead.

The situation is not unlike the Cold War in the 80s.  I remember watching 'The Day After' as a teen and thinking it pretty scary (if you don't recall it is about a full nuclear exchange).  It got people's attention, scared the chit out of a lot of people, and in the end probably that was a good thing.  The optimists kept on telling themselves it wouldn't happen, but a lot of complacent people took the issue more seriously afterwards.

I think that the major issue re climate IS complacency.  There is no 'The Day After' for climate.  If it is covered in fiction, the picture is not that realistic, personal or detailed.  And yet the BAU scenario for fossil usage (as spelled out by the oil majors in their business projections and the EIA) is clearly MUCH WORSE in 2100 than a full nuclear exchange...in terms of leaving large portions of the earth unlivable for centuries, driving many species to extinction through habitat loss and ocean acidification, and knocking down the earths agricultural productivity several notches (by separating the regions that have suitable weather from those that have suitable topsoil), again, for centuries.  And yet it is storms and sea level rise that get discussed, and people don't get scared of those things the same as say, starving to death.

The other major difference re nuclear war and climate change is the former is basically binary....it happens or it doesn't happen and if it doesn't happen....no harm done except to the federal budget deficit.  But climate change IS happening and WILL get worse....we just don't know if the world will keep it to 1.5 to 2°C and if so, it might turn out to not be that that much worse that the current climate...OR...will we drive well past that limit, find out that various tipping points have been exceeded, and then there is not much to do about it except deal for the next 500 years.  Complacency in the US, among average people, the leaders they vote for, media on both sides...they are all picking the scary side of that outcome spectrum!

Where's the outrage?

Go read the article.

And then read David Robert's take on it.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/7/11/15950966/climate-change-doom-journalism


----------



## Ashful (Jul 13, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> One that any optimist would say will never be allowed to happen....but which nonetheless MANY people with money and power are driving us towards full speed ahead...
> 
> Complacency in the US, among average people, the leaders they vote for, media on both sides...they are all picking the scary side of that outcome spectrum!
> 
> Where's the outrage?


Folks vote with their wallet.  Always have, always will... until some other emergency distracts them from it.  It's unfortunate that one of our two viable political parties has taken a stance of climate change denial, but when the other party puts the most massive estate tax increase in history as bullet item #2 on their platform, it's unlikely they're going to get any votes from those "people with money and power" you malign.  Get the Dem's off wealth re-distribution (aka penalizing the ambitious), and we might see some movement on this issue.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

I see.  But that still doesn't explain why folks on the left seem nearly as complacent as those on the right....it is just not on most people's radar.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 13, 2017)

I wonder if it's complacency or confused paralysis.  Most feel they can only contribute to one small aspect of the problem, their personal vehicles and home energy use.  Large-scale shipping, local freight, the cruise ship industry, mega-yachts... all enormous polluters, and eliminating the mostly-impractical step of deciding you're not a "consumer", we have little sway over these factors.

Seems to me that most folks are taking small steps in the right direction, and as some of the PV and EV tech costs are coming down, those small steps are slowly becoming large strides.  Call me a Pollyanna, too... but I count on technology to save us, as long as our government can stay out of the way of it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 13, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Folks vote with their wallet.  Always have, always will... until some other emergency distracts them from it.  .


Which is why most folks are pretty much fed up with all our leaders on both sides. Too bad we dont have a common sense commission that actually finds solutions to our problems void of any ideological spin either way.  Its not rocket science. There are solutions that are tried and tested but we seem to keep making the same mistakes over and over on purpose it seems.  Pushing so called solutions that have never and will never work.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 13, 2017)

Ashful said:


> Call me a Pollyanna, too... but I count on technology to save us, as long as our government can stay out of the way of it.


I dont share your optimism. No amount of technology will save us from an ocean full of trash and the warming that is already in the works.Especially when  just about nothing of substance is being done to even slow either one, let alone reverse it. The best years for the environment are certainly behind us IMO.  I hope im wrong ,but the realist in me thinks im not.   I do think the trash and pollution will be worse than the warming.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I dont share your optimism. No amount of technology will save us from an ocean full of trash and the warming that is already in the works.Especially when  just about nothing of substance is being done to even slow either one, let alone reverse it. The best years for the environment are certainly behind us IMO.  I hope im wrong ,but the realist in me thinks im not.   I do think the trash and pollution will be worse than the warming.


I don't know about that, Oak.  Seems to me we've improved in a lot of ways, just over my 40-odd years of life.  Go back and read about air quality issues in Victorian-era city life, and you'll see enormous improvements have been made, on many fronts.

Growing up near the Jersey shore in the 1970's - 80's, I just thought it was normal to not see my feet when standing in 6 inches of tidal water, or to not see my hands four inches in front of my face when diving in the bay.  It wasn't until the mid-1990's when efforts to reduce coastal ocean pollution and sewage dumping had me noticing I can now see my feet when standing in waist-deep water.  You think today is the low point?

We create new problems, and then we fix them.  It's what we do.  The only way to avoid creating new problems, is to do nothing new.  Our kids will be griping about some new environmental problem created by EV's... and then our grandkids will fix it.


----------



## begreen (Jul 13, 2017)

Clear water can also be a sign of the absence of plankton and life. The desertification of the oceans seems to already taking place. A couple years ago we lost most of the starfish on the west coast. This year crabs? This was a shot on a WA state beach yesterday. Not a normal sight. Locally we have a harbor that was the winter ground for thousands of grebes every year. This was because food was plentiful. They have been in decline over the past 2 decades. This year only a few have been spotted.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> No amount of technology will save us from an ocean full of trash



I'm optimistic. I've also been 40 miles out in the ocean fishing and only once out there can you appreciate the hugeness. There is plenty of clean ocean to dilute whatever trash falls in. It's vast. 

Sit in a city and you will not feel the same way. You are surrounded by filth, stink, danger, and human created scenery. Get out of the city and things get much better.


----------



## begreen (Jul 13, 2017)

The vastness of the oceans gives one a sense of the dire global scale of the problem with acidification as excess CO2 is absorbed into these waters. The atmosphere and ocean work together as an enormous, life-giving engine and we have introduced great imbalance into this system. The effect global and in particular, locally. Hope for quick reversal is slim to none.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-acidity
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540071/dont-count-on-geoengineering-the-oceans/
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Acidifying+Water+Takes+Toll+On+Northwest+Shellfish


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

You folks are making my point for me perfectly.

You are all up in arms about the stuff you can see, pollution and trash, but the idea that invisible CO2 acid could make the entire ocean unlivable for everything but squid and jellies, or that the onshore climate could shift 1000 miles north, stranding all the forests and animals (and killing 95% of them that can't adapt), and leaving the interiors of ALL the continents looking like the Sahara....that's too big and unthinkable I guess.

And yes, it is much worse for humans and the planet than 'The Day After' that we feared decades ago.

But that is exactly what the science says happens if we burn all the "economically recoverable fossil fuels".  And those conditions persist for 500-1000 years (versus a 6 month nuclear winter)!  And yet all our leaders, our companies, their shareholders and CNBC and the WSJ assume that that is exactly what we should and will do! And the media is NOT making them talk about it.

Please go talk about ocean microplastics in the other thread, I'm sick of them.

Here...OPEN YOUR EYES and imagine a broken world that is broken for a millennium and 95% of species extinct forever.  And then try to wrap your head around the fact that that is exactly what lies in store (according to scientific consensus) if we implement the business plans of several of our largest companies, that you are likely partial shareholders in, and the vision of our current leaders.

And then see how you feel.  And if you still give a chit about the recycling rates, microplastics and food composting.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Which is why most folks are pretty much fed up with all our leaders on both sides. Too bad we dont have a common sense commission that actually finds solutions to our problems void of any ideological spin either way.  Its not rocket science. There are solutions that are tried and tested but we seem to keep making the same mistakes over and over on purpose it seems.  Pushing so called solutions that have never and will never work.



Guess what?  This is science's job.  The commission is called the National Academy of Science.  They are the best and brightest, but all old, fat and happy graybeards that have nothing to lose and owe nobody nothing but the Truth.  Many are retired, serving as a public service, and their personal superpower is a finely tuned bullchit detector when reading any scientific study.   

And their reports say, and have said for more than a decade now, that the business as usual (BAU) fossil consumption path will render the planet unlivable for humans and animals by 2100.  And they have been completely ignored, and subsequently accused of bias, vilified by the right wing media, hounded by trolls, etc.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> I do think the trash and pollution will be worse than the warming.



With all due respect Randy, that is simply not correct.  Trash gets buried, microplastics gets eated and buried, and pollution gets washed from the air, all on week to month to year timescales.

Did you see those studies about air pollution after 9/11 grounded all those flights?  They imply that if we ceased all pollution emission today, the atmospheric levels of most tocic species and particulates would go to zero in 2 weeks.  We are just two weeks away from pre-industrial air!

And CH4 and HCFC stick around for 20-50 years, short enough that you can see results of your clean up.

The big kahuna exception is good ol CO2.  It sticks around for 500 years.  And it doesn't pack much of a wallup per gram....but it keeps on doing it for _20 generations_.

Its all about the CO2.



Seasoned Oak said:


> No amount of technology will save us from an ocean full of trash and the warming that is already in the works.



Note that the baked in warming from the emission already made is an entirely different beast.  While there is an uncertainty, it does not look like that a 2°C world is badly broken to the point of apocalypse.  4-6°C yes, that is what the article is about.  But that will depend entirely on what we emit in the next few decades to be realized.  

Effective action starting today CAN avoid the worst effects in the OP article.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'm optimistic. I've also been 40 miles out in the ocean fishing and only once out there can you appreciate the hugeness. There is plenty of clean ocean to dilute whatever trash falls in. It's vast.
> 
> Sit in a city and you will not feel the same way. You are surrounded by filth, stink, danger, and human created scenery. Get out of the city and things get much better.



The vastness of the world is real, and under-appreciated and part of the problem.  We are hard wired by evolution to keep our little nests and bodies clean, and not equipped to do so at the global scale.

SO lets do some numbers.   World consumption of oil is ~1 cubic mile per year, if you can imagine that volume.  If you burn it to CO2, that much CO2 is 3 cubic miles in solid form (the 2Os add to the bulk). If you evaporate that CO2, it expands 1000x in volume....you have just made 3000 cubic miles of pure CO2 gas from all those tailpipes running a year.

IF to break the climate, you need to increase atmospheric CO2 (as in the article), from 400 to 1000 ppm CO2, you can mix the CO2 in 1500 equal parts of the current earth's atmosphere to dilute the pure CO2 down to 1000 ppm.

You have just created 3000 x 1500 = 4,500,000 cubic MILES of brand-new 1000 ppm atmosphere for your new apocalyptic world.  Since the atmosphere is about 20 miles thick, that is enough CO2 to cover and kill for 500 years 200,000 square miles of the earth, about the size of California.  Just from one years emission of just oil.  Add in the coal and gas and the concrete and the agriculture, and we are creating enough CO2 to kill a million square miles of the future earth EVERY YEAR.

And that is a million square miles that people live on today, and which can, given enough years, cover your vast ocean like paper covers rock.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 13, 2017)

We may make some headway only to have it zeroed out by population increase. The rain forest is still being decimated.  So absent the "lungs of the world " is bound to have some detrimental effect  as well. Ill be optimistic when i see something to be optimistic about.  I dont see a world effort yet. It dont do us much good to go it alone.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> We may make some headway only to have it zeroed out by population increase. The rain forest is still being decimated.  So absent the "lungs of the world " is bound to have some detrimental effect  as well. Ill be optimistic when i see something to be optimistic about.  I don't see a world effort yet. It dont do us much good to go it alone.



Where do you get your news?  You have it exactly backwards.  COP21 is a world effort.  Not strong enough, but more than halfway to avoiding the bad outcomes in the _New York_ article, and an annual international meeting/review mechanism to track and tighten up on emissions.

Right now the WORLD is going it alone without US.  We, the large country with the highest per capita emissions!  FWIW, we are also the only country with any significant amount of climate dissent/denial....the rest of the world is scared of global warming, not complacent, and mobilized to do something about it DESPITE our denial and inaction in the US.

Population growth is flattening out and will be a non-issue by 2100.  Peak population projections keep moving earlier.  And rainforests....they're nice, but if we stopped making oxygen....it would take a million years to run out.  And most is made in the sea anyway.


----------



## bholler (Jul 13, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'm optimistic. I've also been 40 miles out in the ocean fishing and only once out there can you appreciate the hugeness. There is plenty of clean ocean to dilute whatever trash falls in. It's vast.
> 
> Sit in a city and you will not feel the same way. You are surrounded by filth, stink, danger, and human created scenery. Get out of the city and things get much better.


You you are saying we can dump in the ocean with no problems endlessly it will just be diluted.  You do realize how crazy that is right.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 13, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Where do you get your news?  .


 About all i watch on TV is news . I dont see the bright picture you paint for the rest of the world on the news ,mostly bad news! Problem with other countries is mostly small ones going green. The big ones getting worse.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 13, 2017)

Hopefully the big cities that care about climate change will pull together with companies that also care about the issue.  As crazy as it seems, pulling out of the Paris agreement may provide a spark that gets people thinking of new ways to tackle the issue because the old way wasn't getting it done.  We should be on a war path like during WWII when we organized and focused for a common goal.

The sad part is that we have it pretty good right now living in the U.S. and we are risking it all to avoid making reasonable lifestyle changes that wouldn't be that burdensome and would at the same time have some great benefits.  But we don't want to change.  It is frustrating.

I am beginning to wonder if as a species we are suffering from some sort of meltdown hardwired into us.  Some sort of colony collapse after a certain population point is achieved.  We haven't had a big die-off in a while, so we might be due for one soon.  History is full of civilizations that suddenly disappear or self destruct.

I don't want to be doom and gloom, but the challenge we are facing is massive.  If there is hope, it lies with the younger generations since this will be their cross to carry.  Once the older, non-believers are out of power, the next generations will have to put their efforts into overdrive to fix the issue.

Even if you think about the problem practically and economically, it is better to tackle this now rather than later.  I was reading an article on how a new financial crisis could be triggered if mortgage lenders stop lending money for properties that will flood because of rising seas.  The owners of all those pricey condos in Miami beach would be stuck with them because buyers would not be able to get financing.  Those values would then crash, wrecking the balance sheets of the banks that own the mortgages - so now the banks have to write down the loss in value and raise capital.  The point is, we are all going to be poorer because of climate change.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 13, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> About all i watch on TV is news.



Now it all makes sense.

The telly is not the best way to be informed. It's all pretty bad but some are worse than others.

Did you know that people whos only source of new was Fox are less informed than people who don't consume ANY tv news!

http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

And people here wonder why no one is very alarmed by the elephant in the room (global warming). 

Fox news regarding global warming:

1) It's fake
2) The scientists lie and falsify data to create a job for themselves
3) It's a hoax
4) It's a liberal over-reaction
5) It's the gubermint trying to tell you what to do.
6) We need the oil
7) There's nothing we can do about it anyway


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 14, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> And their reports say, and have said for more than a decade now, that the business as usual (BAU) fossil consumption path will render the planet unlivable for humans and animals by 2100.  And they have been completely ignored, and subsequently accused of bias, vilified by the right wing media, hounded by trolls, etc.



I talked to a fundamentalist Christian who was rooting for climate disaster. Because then it would be time for Jesus to descend from the heavens and take all the Christians to a perfect and everlasting world. And I think a lot of people secretly do want this for that very reason. Which explains why they attack the scientists. They see them as standing in the way of God's plan. 

Nice, eh?


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 14, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> About all i watch on TV is news . I dont see the bright picture you paint for the rest of the world on the news ,mostly bad news! Problem with other countries is mostly small ones going green. The big ones getting worse.



Not to my knowledge. 

Thirty years ago a friend of mine went to (mainland) China for a a visit, and it was pretty broken down as a country. Her host family saw her ready to throw away the ziploc bags she had packed some stuff in....and they begged her to have them b/c they would use them to store things until they fell apart...nothing like that was available to them at the time.

Nowadays, my Chinese students arrive in the US, in fine shiny clothes and the latest bling, and shake their heads when they see the state of infrastructure decay and poverty in the streets in the US.  They literally can't believe it until they see it, and ask me how it came to be like that?  I have no answer for them but 'politics'. 

Meanwhile, China is winding down their coal plants (reducing their duty cycle), and building enough wind and solar in the next 10 years to power the entire US!  My colleagues that travel in Beijing report riding in all EV taxis while there.  China sold close to a million EVs last year, domestically produced, and are gearing up EV battery factories that dwarf Elon Musk's current gigafactory vision.

And (near future) Chinese peak CO2 per capita emissions will likely be <50% of our current emissions.

I'm blowing my CO2 budget on a (rare) business trip in Seoul right now.  They have a fricking maglev train out here.  I'm a gonna have to ride it just to say I did.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

Probably doing a lot of that on the interest we pay them on the money they loaned us plus the huge trade deficit that greatly benefits them. I have to agree that china for a communist country is making us look bad in a lot of ways. I have a few chinese friends and they are extreme workaholics and all upper middle class living here. I wouldnt want to live under a communist dictatorship  govt but they have shown it can be efficient. Too much infighting in our govt (and getting worse)to make that kind of progress


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Did you know that people whos only source of new was Fox are less informed than people who don't consume ANY tv news!


I watch all the news channels, some just to see how ridiculous they can get. Unfortunately most of them are all politics recently and do not cover any real news.  I can filter out the facts if they would present some ,but alas real news programs are in the past. Its all political opinion, spin, fake news and conspiracy theories. Cant believe everything you read on the internet either. I absolutely do believe the planet is warming.  Would like to see a rapid conversion to EVs , but dont see much progress there quickly enough no matter who is running the govt.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 14, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> .... Would like to see a rapid conversion to EVs , but dont see much progress there quickly enough no matter who is running the govt.



Well the next 12 mos are going to be interesting.  Tesla delivers its first Model 3s the end of the month, and then plans to rapidly scale production to sell tens of thousands by the end of 2017, and six figures in 2018.  Nissan is behind, but will announce their long-range Gen 2 LEAF in September, and start shipping them in January.  They are also ready to sell six figures in 2018 (in the US), more globally.

EV sales have been growing at 60% yoy growth rates for the last 7 years, including since oil got cheap.  TV news has often misreported this fact...instead talking about the flatlining of sales of hybrids (due in part IMO to the cannibalization by EVs).

If we are going to see mainstream adoption, it begins this year.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 14, 2017)

DId anyone actually read the article?

Reactions?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

I like the GM bolt ,tons of range and i could probably power my house for a week if the grid went down.  Got to love 240 miles of EV driving.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?
> 
> Reactions?
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html


Il read it tonight, looks interesting. Off to work!


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 14, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?
> 
> Reactions?
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html



Yeah, I read it when it first came out.  It depressed me even more than I already was about climate change.

I don't think our current capitalist economic model is going to work in the age of climate change.  Current capitalism requires permanent growth - make more, sell more - have more people to make more and sell more.  You can't eat, live or reproduce if you don't contribute to the current economic system.  China and India have huge populations - that is their human capital - that creates wealth to the top.  It is all geared to grow.  Unfortunately changing this system is not going to happen anytime soon.  It will require some serious pain to get people to realize it's not working and then it is not guaranteed that the correct choices will be made after.  I suspect society will break into groups of winners and losers.  Losers die and winners live a very hot life, struggling to keep the human race alive.

I don't mean to exaggerate, but even the most simple, obvious changes to mitigate the issue trip us up.

Getting off this planet and colonizing other livable worlds may be the best option to keep the species alive.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 14, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?
> 
> Reactions?
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html



Yes, very good article. I'm sure our tweeter-in-chief would say it's fake news.

I have long thought we should take drastic and immediate action on climate change. This would cause a massive transfer of wealth from the idle rich to the people who actually work for a living designing and installing solutions as the economy would be unavoidably disrupted (not necessarily in a bad way) during the sudden shift from oil to renewables. Coal has been dying for a long time and it has little to do with pollution or GW. But instead we sit on our collective asses and elect people who want us to keep sitting on our asses.

I have also long believed drastic climate change is coming even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels completely and immediately. There is a natural time lag between cause and effect. But the drastic climate change that is coming will be much less (although still drastic) if we stop carbon now. The article was good to highlight the warming gasses locked in the millions of acres of permafrost. When that is released it's going to be a cascading effect that will hit humanity straight in the face so hard and so fast that the deniers will feel stupid (but only until they rewrite history and highlight their (non- existent) long-standing support for green policies). Then there will be a flurry of articles "explaining" that, by the time we really understood climate change it was already too late. Never mind that this was known as early as the 1920's but that oil greed, greed of material wealth, blocked action by sowing seeds of doubt and pitting the people against one another. Imagine the outcome of WWII if the Nazis had been able to pit conservatives against liberals as effectively as big money interests have today! We would live in a world where all men were equal unless they were not white and Aryan. But, as it stands now, we are entering into an era where all men are created equal unless you don't have enough wealth to afford the drastic solutions that will be necessary to live in relative comfort in a post AGW world. And with rulings like Citizen's United, the strength of big money interests over that of the common man continues to grow.

It's high time that ALL patriotic Americans united and took up a war, not a silly war on drugs or a misguided war on terror, but a real war, a war on the biggest and most dangerous, most insidious threat we have ever faced, a war on man made climate change. Those who are traitorous in this war on AGW should be charged with treason. We are living in dangerous times.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

Its not about politics ,most politicians cant see past their current term.  We have a system of gridlock that seems to be getting worse. I think a change to a renewable carbonless economy would outstrip the computer in job creation and economic opportunity. A few smart folks with money will see it as a good investment.


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 14, 2017)

Woody, while I agree with a lot of your points in this issue, calling people with opposing views on this issue traitors is not productive and just makes progress that much harder.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 14, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?
> 
> Reactions?
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html


Wow and i thought i was a pessimist ,alarming is all that come so mind. Been reading about the permafrost thing for awhile.Its been bubbling up in various places for years. Can get a whole lot worse quickly.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 14, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Woody, while I agree with a lot of your points in this issue, calling people with opposing views on this issue traitors is not productive and just makes progress that much harder.



I didn't call anyone a traitor. I said we should have an official war against AGW and that people who actively interfered with the war should, under US law, be deemed traitors to their nation and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

During WWII there were a good number of German Americans who thought  Hitler was good and right. It was an actual crime to do business with him or help his war machine or refuse to serve your country when conscripted. People were rightfully persecuted as traitors to their country if they assisted him, whether that be providing him useful information or actual hard goods. The enemy we face now is at least as much of a threat and we need to stop denying how serous the consequences to our Country and even civilization itself. Every American should be conscripted to fight this war and traitors who actively undermine the war effort should be prosecuted as they always have in America during times of war.

Progress on tackling climate change is not hindered because I have strong views, it's hindered because moneyed interests have worked hard to confuse the true nature of the threat and to pit one side against the other. What we need is clarity on the risks and unity as a nation to tackle this most serious threat. And once we have that, the minority who stubbornly refuse to admit it's a real threat and actively work against the war effort and our national interests, should be prosecuted. Just like every war.


----------



## begreen (Jul 14, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its not about politics ,most politicians cant see past their current term.  We have a system of gridlock that seems to be getting worse. I think a change to a renewable carbonless economy would outstrip the computer in job creation and economic opportunity. A few smart folks with money will see it as a good investment.


The gridlock is intentional as is the divisiveness. Keeps the masses busy while the country gets looted. You are right. The effort to retool America and the world would mean massive investment and productivity. An economy based on this premise could be very promising.
This is worth a read for options:
http://www.drawdown.org/


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 14, 2017)

Wow, what a bunch of Debbie Downers.   I'm gonna go pop a top and convert some half dried pine into carbon dioxide and water.    Maybe have a bowl of ice cream.     Anybody want to join me?




Fwiw, in my 40 years I've seen drastic improvements in the environment.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 15, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Fwiw, in my 40 years I've seen drastic improvements in the environment.



True, we've made massive improvements regarding toxins, soot, and things that make people, animals and trees sick. Much healthier in those respects.

But in terms of the composition of the atmosphere, gases that cause global warming have been on a steady march upward. CO2 emissions in the US are flat to slightly down in recent years due to cheap natural gas and less coal, even so, we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate that will cause catastrophic global warming. And global CO2 emissions are still increasing overall. And this is a bigger threat to our health and welfare than soot and toxins ever were. Actually, to our very existence. 

I like to look at the bright side of things too but I'm not sure how realistic that is when the elephant in the room is so big.


----------



## begreen (Jul 15, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> Fwiw, in my 40 years I've seen drastic improvements in the environment.


Locally a lot has improved also, but we are talking large, global systems here. It's like comparing local weather to global climate. The big picture is what is important. The planet's health is declining, rapidly. There are many warning signs. When the permafrost melts a massive climate feedback loop is amplified. Giant ocean systems like the great barrier reef are dying. The planetary species extinction rate is high and accelerating due to climate change. These are hard to ignore facts. 

https://independentaustralia.net/en...isplay/the-great-barrier-reef-is-doomed,10501
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia
http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/digitaaldepot/20040108nature.pdf


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 15, 2017)

Its  vicious cycle ,when too much fresh water enters the atlantic from the thaw the global ocean conveyor may stop, triggering wide variations of temperature between the equator and the north atlantic.  Failing to cool the equator and warm the north to even out temps. Many fish species are already 90+ % decimated. When do the alarm bells go off for those in the fishing industry and Govt ,at 99.9% or 100% ?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 15, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?



I do see the heat zone thing happening already, its getting to be more summer days are unbearable to be outside than winter days. I work out side in the summer and i have to allow for a certain number of days where its just too hot and humid and just retreat to indoor work. Also i v been able to do outdoor work right up until Xmas most years lately. I dont ever remember airports being shut down for long periods of time due to high air temps .


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 17, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?
> 
> Reactions?
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html


yep, loved the beginning with the false flood? end of article, I recently found. two years old but fits imho.
"
But by now you can get an idea for the major outlines of an environmental hysteria. The steps are: *a)* start with assumption that man is “ravaging the Earth,” *b)* latch onto an unproven scientific hypothesis that fits this preconception, *c)* extrapolate wildly from half-formed theories and short-term trends to predict a future apocalypse, *d)* pressure a bunch of people with “Ph.D.” after their names to endorse it so you can say it’s a consensus of experts, *e)* get the press to broadcast it with even less nuance and get a bunch of Hollywood celebrities who failed Freshman biology to adopt it as their pet cause, then finally *f)* quietly drop the whole thing when it doesn’t pan out—and move on with undiminished enthusiasm to the next environmental doomsday scenario.

When men fail as entirely as they have—well, I’m not going to ask them to fall on their swords. But we might ask them to understand why, when they assure us their newest doomsday predictions are really, really true this time, we’re not inclined to believe a single word they say." http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/

then from the ref. article "In between scientific reticence and science fiction is science itself. This article is the result of dozens of interviews and exchanges with climatologists and researchers in related fields and reflects hundreds of scientific papers on the subject of climate change. What follows is not a series of predictions of what will happen — that will be determined in large part by the much-less-certain science of human response. Instead, it is a portrait of our best understanding of where the planet is heading absent aggressive action. It is unlikely that all of these warming scenarios will be fully realized, largely because the devastation along the way will shake our complacency. But those scenarios, and not the present climate, are the baseline. In fact, they are our schedule."

pretty much follows the predicted outline.

with as much as man is involved with nature in this whole thing, one has to wonder if man will ever find the knob to turn down the temp. certainly old mom nature turned it up with  last year's El Nino. <400ppm co2? methane from perma frost? cow farts? cap and tax C? ect,ect


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)

Classic cherry picking of single erroneous assumptions to make a point. I note that in that screed the author makes his own failed prediction:
"Germany is about to be crushed by the massive cost of its renewable energy boondoggle."
The difference from these single person predictions that he dug through and amped up way beyond their original importance is that the world's main body and vast majority of climate scientists are now expressing a common believe and theory of climate change. This is based on much more sophisticated science and magnitudes greater input and climate data than was capable of being processed even 20 years ago. To base his claims on four persons that got their predictions wrong is folly. For sure some earlier predictions have been off by the date, but that doesn't change the trends. Also, he makes a silly and very easy claim that I can make too. "Personally, I’m on record predicting another ice age—sometime in the next 10,000 years or so" Fine, I'll go on record and say that he is right, I agree. I'll also say that in 10000 years the poles will have reversed and man will be gone. Come back in 10,000 yrs. and tell me if I'm wrong.

It would be one thing if the opposing side expressed concern about the planet and found it worth studying more in depth. But now it is all attack journalism (and I use that word very loosely) with the sole goal of discrediting that which they oppose. This does not help at all. Yes, there are alarmists and yes they may have a cloudier crystal ball than some, but for Tracnski to say that those alarms about the effects of DDT or acid rain were false and the outcomes were none existent is not only wrong, ignores that those alarms stopped significant environmental harm and that what he is observing from this lofty perch are the benefits of acid rain reduction and the return of many species that were on the brink of extinction. He also ignores the fact that DDT failed due to overuse, insects developing resistance, and the fact that DDT was getting stored and accumulating in the fats of animals including humans. FWIW, malaria is virtually non-existent now in America and DDT is still used carefully in some places of the world for malarial control as a last resort. 

So yeah, a few people got some stuff wrong, that's always the case, regardless of one's politics. The point of science is not to be perfect, but to be self-correcting. As we get more data and input it appears that the body of serious climate scientist and environmentalists on the whole are doing a decent job. Naysayers and challenges are good, but when they come from industry pundits trying to obscure, deflect or distract for profit, the result often isn't good and certainly not helpful.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 17, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> I don't think our current capitalist economic model is going to work in the age of climate change.  Current capitalism requires permanent growth - make more, sell more - have more people to make more and sell more.  You can't eat, live or reproduce if you don't contribute to the current economic system.  China and India have huge populations - that is their human capital - that creates wealth to the top.  It is all geared to grow.  Unfortunately changing this system is not going to happen anytime soon.  It will require some serious pain to get people to realize it's not working and then it is not guaranteed that the correct choices will be made after.  I suspect society will break into groups of winners and losers.  Losers die and winners live a very hot life, struggling to keep the human race alive.



What do you mean by growth?  Markets and products are constantly dynamic.  All are in a state of rising and falling all at the same time.  

Capitalism is all about supply and demand.  Demand creates markets.  Companies meet those demands with products.  People need things and are willing to work for them to keep the fruits of labor.  

Capitalism has made our country rise above the rest....I can get an education, support a family, have free time, work in an air conditioned office and challenge my mind.  I'm not about to throw that out because someone thinks something else might be better. 

What is the alternative?


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 17, 2017)

begreen said:


> Classic cherry picking of single erroneous assumptions to make a point. I note that in that screed the author makes his own failed prediction:
> "Germany is about to be crushed by the massive cost of its renewable energy boondoggle."
> The difference from these single person predictions that he dug through and amped up way beyond their original importance is that the world's main body and vast majority of climate scientists are now expressing a common believe and theory of climate change. This is based on much more sophisticated science and magnitudes greater input and climate data than was capable of being processed even 20 years ago. To base his claims on four persons that got their predictions wrong is folly. For sure some earlier predictions have been off by the date, but that doesn't change the trends. Also, he makes a silly and very easy claim that I can make too. "Personally, I’m on record predicting another ice age—sometime in the next 10,000 years or so" Fine, I'll go on record and say that he is right, I agree. I'll also say that in 10000 years the poles will have reversed and man will be gone. Come back in 10,000 yrs. and tell me if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...



How can you be doom and gloom and have another thread open about which half ton pickup truck to buy?  Trucks consume tons of gas and towing anything like a camper you're lucky to get 2-5 miles/gallon going up any incline. 

I do not understand.  How can you say the earth is dying because of man and then buy a pickup truck? 
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/half-ton-pickup-redux.162312/


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 17, 2017)

I'll take this one: because life goes on.  

We do what we can do and hope for the best.

I for one am not into shaming anyone.....ok maybe the mgmt of major oil companies and climate deniers....but private citizens without any big guns...nope.


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)

I'm not going to crawl into a hole and stop living. We do the best to keep our footprint small. A pickup truck is a tool we use for gathering wood, moving compost, taking yard waste to the transfer station for composting, etc.. The amount of time it will be used for camping is about 20% of it's mileage. The truck will see few miles outside of needed usage. Our current truck is a 1994 with 61,000 miles on it. We use the Volt for all daily driving and that runs on the sun 6  months of the year. And we use public transit frequently.



sportbikerider78 said:


> anything like a camper you're lucky to get 2-5 miles/gallon going up any incline


That simply isn't so with modern 1/2T pickups. Friend's ecoboost Ford drops down to 12mpg, climbing up the grade to Steven's  Pass at 4000 ft and quickly jumps up to 25+ heading down the other side, with camper. Minor inclines have little effect. A strong headwind or driving over 65mph has a greater effect.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2017)

bholler said:


> You you are saying we can dump in the ocean with no problems endlessly it will just be diluted.  You do realize how crazy that is right.



Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 17, 2017)

Im driving  one too (pickup)(. The earth will not live or die on my choices alone.  I see lots of dual wheel  and and F250s 350s taking their kids to school. doing daily driving groceries ect. Probably only a realistic fuel prices will curb that kind of behavior.  The earth wont die, but some of the people may.  Fracking is what is stalling adoption to electric thru low gas prices.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.


The ocean is BIG ,and the problem is BIG ,like the size of texas. One of the many floating garbage areas is north of hawaii is reported to be the size of texas. Imagine how much  sank to the bottom!


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 17, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> What do you mean by growth?  Markets and products are constantly dynamic.  All are in a state of rising and falling all at the same time.
> 
> Capitalism is all about supply and demand.  Demand creates markets.  Companies meet those demands with products.  People need things and are willing to work for them to keep the fruits of labor.
> 
> ...



What do you mean by growth?  Markets and products are constantly dynamic.  All are in a state of rising and falling all at the same time.   Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I mean that lending money and making investments require a rate of return, which means if I lend you $100 I expect $106 in return (or whatever the rate of return is).  That is growth.  So the person who borrowed the $100 has to sell more, get more efficient or do both to earn the $6 extra to pay back the loan.  On the macro level you see this in the growth of GDP.  We are at all times high and it will keep growing so people and companies can pay back those loans with interest.  This goes for just about everything in society - real estate, capital investments, personal loans, etc.  If you can't grow the economy, then paying back those loans with interest becomes impossible, and you start getting deflation which brings a lot of pain because people lose value on their investments, homes, and banks then don't want to lend as much.  This then leads to higher unemployment, default rates, and financial pain all around.  So the system is made to grow to avoid the pain.  Which means more economic activity and more carbon dioxide in the air, which, I believe, will make global warming worse.

Capitalism has made our country rise above the rest....I can get an education, support a family, have free time, work in an air conditioned office and challenge my mind.  I'm not about to throw that out because someone thinks something else might be better.  I am a big supporter of capitalism, it has proven itself to be the champion economic system.  But capitalism should not be reason for society.  Capitalism should bend to the needs of society, not the other way around.  For example, we shouldn't allow unsafe working conditions, or child labor.  What's the point of having all these great material things, if we make the earth uninhabitable to humans in 100 years.

Also, I don't think capitalism is the main reason our country is great.  Our country has been made great by investing in people, infrastructure and ideas.  It is no coincidence that since WWII government has spend so much money on education, social programs, basic infrastructure and our economy has flourished.  That's because all those investments allowed generations of people to be creative, work hard, and create new goods and services.  Invest in people if you want your country to be great.

That's why it is crazy to have to argue that mercury in the water is bad.  That pollution in the air is bad.  

We can keep our economy growing (higher GDP) and become less dependent on carbon fuels.  But the political will is not there yet.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im driving  one too (pickup)(. The earth will not live or die on my choices alone.  I see lots of dual wheel  and and F250s 350s taking their kids to school. doing daily driving groceries ect. Probably only a realistic fuel prices will curb that kind of behavior.  The earth wont die, but some of the people may.  Fracking is what is stalling adoption to electric thru low gas prices.



Now to totally blow your mind, my F350 crew cab diesel 4x4 pickup gets better mileage than many (most) minivans! So taking the kids to school can actually be better in the big trucks. When towing or hauling, the mpg goes down a lot. When towing our RV trailer (400+ miles just this weekend) I get 12 mpg which is the same as the half ton guys get when towing.

If I didn't have an RV to tow I could get away with a smaller pickup but I would not gain much in mpg. If I lived where I didn't need a pickup then I could really get a gas or electric sipping car instead. Oh and I've done the math, buying a second vehicle for high mpg does not pay for itself given the need for insurance on the second vehicle. If fuel prices doubled or tripled, then maybe.


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.


no your bottle cap alone wont make a difference but everyone's bottle caps would.  Especially if it came along with the bottle and the bag it was bought in.   Yes the ocean is big but it is not limitless.  Have you never walked on a beach after a storm?  Have you never seen the pictures of the floating garbage areas?


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Now to totally blow your mind, my F350 crew cab diesel 4x4 pickup gets better mileage than many (most) minivans! So taking the kids to school can actually be better in the big trucks.


Yes but emission standards on bigger trucks are less stringent than those on a passenger car so you may be using the same or less fuel but the emissions are more.   That being said If you have a need for a big truck like you do I dont see an issue with it.  But there are allot of people driving big trucks around every day that do not need them.


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## woodgeek (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Pretty much. If you don't know any better, you think the ocean is small and that my bottle cap will make a big difference when it falls overboard.



I'm gonna agree with @Highbeam on this one....  Ocean > > Atmosphere. 

IF we could mix it well, we could dump all that pesky CO2 in the ocean without ill effect.  Indeed, in 1000 years, it will get there on its own.  The major problem is the natural mixing time of the ocean is about 100,000 years.


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> IF we could mix it well, we could dump all that pesky CO2 in the ocean without ill effect.


what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect?  That is just totally wrong as well


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2017)

bholler said:


> what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect?  That is just totally wrong as well



Same reason that you can't smell my farts way over there in PA!


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Same reason that you can't smell my farts way over there in PA!


But you dont get that if you dump enough stuff into the ocean it will effect things.  and we are already seeing increased co2 levels with negative effects in the oceans.  Now you guys think the solution is to dump more trash and co2 in there?  Open your eyes and look at the evidence it is there already.  The ocean and the atmosphere cannot just absorb everything we are putting into them.  They just cant.


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)

The oceans are really vast when you consider their depth as well as surface area. Problem is chit floats and the surface is getting clogged in some areas. Also, remember it is not just bottlecaps (which sink), but plastics, industrial waste, agricultural runoff, etc. that is also going into the oceans, here and especially abroad. And not just in a small way. Note how the deadzone where the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf has grown. With third world nations struggling to rapidly catch up the problem is much worse and often they have little or no environmental regulation.

And then there is acidfication which happens for a number of reasons that combine into a larger problem.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-ocean-acidification.php


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 17, 2017)

bholler said:


> But you dont get that if you dump enough stuff into the ocean it will effect things.  and we are already seeing increased co2 levels with negative effects in the oceans.  Now you guys think the solution is to dump more trash and co2 in there?  Open your eyes and look at the evidence it is there already.  The ocean and the atmosphere cannot just absorb everything we are putting into them.  They just cant.



Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 17, 2017)

begreen said:


> I'm not going to crawl into a hole and stop living. We do the best to keep our footprint small. A pickup truck is a tool we use for gathering wood, moving compost, taking yard waste to the transfer station for composting, etc.. The amount of time it will be used for camping is about 20% of it's mileage. The truck will see few miles outside of needed usage. Our current truck is a 1994 with 61,000 miles on it. We use the Volt for all daily driving and that runs on the sun 6  months of the year. And we use public transit frequently.
> 
> 
> That simply isn't so with modern 1/2T pickups. Friend's ecoboost Ford drops down to 12mpg, climbing up the grade to Steven's  Pass at 4000 ft and quickly jumps up to 25+ heading down the other side, with camper. Minor inclines have little effect. A strong headwind or driving over 65mph has a greater effect.



I'm all for trucks and big gas hogs with big tires, made by big oil, that take big energy, and large oil changes, big transmissions filled with oil..and big energy to make that tubular steel frame, with big boats or big campers in tow.  I could care less.  But I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  I also don't think it is damaging the planet.....but you do.

Got it loud and clear man.  You do realize that 12mpg is just terrible, right?  But not for a truck.  

Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.


It is not an opinion there is clear evidence that it is fact.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.


do you have any evidence that we can dump unlimited quantities of trash into the ocean with no ill effects?

How about co2 and evidence that increased co2 levels in the ocean have no ill effect?


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?


Every one when they can.  There will always be a need for trucks but we can all cut back.  I know I have more room to cut back and I am working on getting there.  I also have several vehicles that are big gas hogs most for work but one 2 that are just for fun.  But honestly I put very few miles on them so they dont contribute much.  But I would never think of using a jacked up truck as a daily driver for many reasons including environmental ones.


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't agree with your opinion and conclusions on the matter.


https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2007/01/


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 17, 2017)

This thread is now exploring the boundaries of the universe.


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Exactly, who is supposed to cut back so they aren't damaging the environment?


Nobody is talking about crawling into a hole. FWIW, we've cut our carbon footprint down by about 2/3ds since we moved into this house. If all did the same the net effect would be stunning. Conservation is the cheapest way toward CO2 reduction. But it will take larger moves on large scale systems too. Government fuel usage is a good place to start and over the past decade there has been good progress in part due to stricter Cafe laws. Transportation infrastructure is another place where notable savings can and are occurring. Power generation is another. And fwiw, gas mileage on some 1/2T trucks has doubled in the past 20 years.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 17, 2017)

bholler said:


> what makes you think that increased c02 levels in the ocean would have no ill effect?  That is just totally wrong as well



I should have been more clear @bholler.  I meant that if it was mixed to the full depth of the ocean, it would be dilute enough to not cause a significant chemical change (e.g. acidification).   

In general, most things can be diluted to the point of not being a problem...if the dilution is sufficient.

Of course, for human CO2 emissions, the atmosphere is NOT big enough for such dilution.  The surface waters of the ocean (the top 50 m that mixes with the atmosphere relatively quickly) is ALSO not big enough (with resulting acidification).  The ocean at depth IS big enough, but takes many millennia to mix itself, and thus the problem is not that the ocean is too small, but rather that it is too slow.

As for the millions of tons of microplastic particles in the ocean....their danger is still being debated.


----------



## begreen (Jul 17, 2017)

More ways that one can change lifestyle to reduce CO2 impact
http://grist.org/briefly/groundbreaking-study-outlines-what-you-can-do-about-climate-change/


----------



## bholler (Jul 17, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I should have been more clear @bholler.  I meant that if it was mixed to the full depth of the ocean, it would be dilute enough to not cause a significant chemical change (e.g. acidification).
> 
> In general, most things can be diluted to the point of not being a problem...if the dilution is sufficient.
> 
> ...


But eventually even the full volume will not be enough to dilute it.   And no we dont know the dangers of microplastic particles but can you honestly say that you beleive they will do no harm?


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 18, 2017)

bholler said:


> But eventually even the full volume will not be enough to dilute it.   And no we dont know the dangers of microplastic particles but can you honestly say that you beleive they will do no harm?



The full volume of the ocean is sufficient to absorb any plausible release of CO2 by humans in the next 100 years, without sgnificant acidification, but there is no point in arguing an un-realizable hypothetical.

For microplastics....yep, I can honestly say that I think they will do no harm until I see the data that they will.  It is not clear to me that having a few dozen cubic mm pieces of plastic floating per cubic meter of surface water (less than a part per million by weight, about the maximum density of the current so-called 'garbage patches') is sufficient to cause a large scale extinction of life in the seas, of the order being considered in this thread due to CO2 and HS.  For one, if they turn out to be a major problem, then the sources can be cut off relatively easily and cheaply, unlike CO2.  For another, it is quite possible that the material gets buried on a reasonable timescale (like decades) via natural processes.

It IS important to prioritize our goals using the best available science. I'm waiting to see some on the microplastic issue...so far all I see is a lot of hype.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 18, 2017)

begreen said:


> More ways that one can change lifestyle to reduce CO2 impact
> http://grist.org/briefly/groundbreaking-study-outlines-what-you-can-do-about-climate-change/



This one has been making the rounds lately.....but it leaves me cold.  I am not at all sure that it will do any good.  I think most people are aware that not having a car, getting on an airplane or having children will drastically reduce ones impact on the climate.  But most people will choose to do those things anyway.  By only presenting those options with big bars (with the exception of buying green energy), it discourages a large number of other choices that are compatible with most people's desired lifestyle.

I've dropped my family's CO2e/yr footprint by 25 tons at almost zero amortized cost through simple remodels of my house, buying a couple HPs, getting an EV and buying green power.  This roughly cuts my family's overall footprint by half.

If we took a magnifying glass to our diet...being more flexitarian (than we already are), reducing dairy and food wastage and being careful about sourcing, we could probably get from 50% to 30% of our earlier emissions.

But most of those things don't fit in an 'infographic'.


----------



## begreen (Jul 18, 2017)

Yes, our big dent was getting rid of fossil fuel heat, installing a HP, serious sealing and insulation in the house + new windows, an electric car. All appliances were upgraded to high energy star scorers. We did cut out long transocean flights. Haven't done that since 2009 and actually haven't flown much at all in the past 5 yrs.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 18, 2017)

I just visited eastern Washington over the weekend and met with a water rights attorney from the city of Wenatchee which is fairly large, modern, and on the Columbia River. Anyway, his electricity cost is 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Imagine that. Imagine how this contributes to his lack of conservation. His home is all electric as you can imagine.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 18, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> This thread is now exploring the boundaries of the universe.


I had to walk away about 25 posts ago, but couldn't resist poking my head back in, with predictable thread progression:  Woodgeek never ceases to impress me with his breadth and depth of research and knowledge, on any subject he chooses to tackle.  He might even make an environmentalist out of this conservative, someday.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 18, 2017)

read this today, after Dr. Maue pointed out to accomplish could cost 1/2 quadrillion$$$.no clue given where that figure comes from but falls in the doomsday range.http://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/07/18/young-peoples-burden-requirement-of-negative-co2-emissions/  clue in video


----------



## georgepds (Jul 19, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I had to walk away about 25 posts ago, but couldn't resist poking my head back in, with predictable thread progression:  Woodgeek never ceases to impress me with his breadth and depth of research and knowledge, on any subject he chooses to tackle.  He might even make an environmentalist out of this conservative, someday.



I always thought good stewardship of the environment was a conservative position.

Agree wholeheartedly about Woodgeek


----------



## Ashful (Jul 19, 2017)

georgepds said:


> I always thought good stewardship of the environment was a conservative position.
> 
> Agree wholeheartedly about Woodgeek



It's a dichotomy, with both leftists and conservatives claiming domain, while disagreeing on what "good stewardship" means.


----------



## begreen (Jul 19, 2017)

Ashful said:


> It's a dichotomy, with both leftists and conservatives claiming domain, while disagreeing on what "good stewardship" means.


How so? Can you explain?


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 20, 2017)

Being in support of environmental conservation is not the same as being a political conservative.


----------



## Ashful (Jul 20, 2017)

begreen said:


> How so? Can you explain?


That's tough to do, without agitating folks on both sides, or having this thread closed.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 20, 2017)

How's this for a continuum? Preservation to conservation to exploitation. Conservation includes utilization of a resource.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 21, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Being in support of environmental conservation is not the same as being a political conservative.


I fully agree. New definitions are needed for political groupings.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 21, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Being in support of environmental conservation is not the same as being a political conservative.



Really?

Isn't that kinda like saying:

"Raping is wrong and should be punished"?


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 21, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Really?
> 
> Isn't that kinda like saying:
> 
> "Raping is wrong and should be punished"?



So are you saying that what I said was obvious and true?

You'd be surprised how many people think conservation (in the environmental context) means not using a resource. Even more make the assumption that a political conservative is in favor of clearcutting the country and polluting the streams!


----------



## begreen (Jul 21, 2017)

Yes, there are a lot of fishermen and others that are quite conservative but firmly believe in preserving and protecting natural resources. I ran into this in eastern OR when staying with some BLM scientists. They see both sides frequently.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 21, 2017)

I think that environment concerns are naturally apolitical and popular.  This is why Nixon started the EPA, and the Clean Air Act (and its revisions) were enacted and enforced by leaders from both parties.

It is clear that environmental concerns aka 'environmentalism' has been politicized over the last ten years or so (e.g. McCain was a climate hawk before 2008), but I think that is more about the agenda of the people doing the politicization (both side have played a role) than anything to do with the environment or the science involved.

It is certainly likely that global warming is an easier target for political manipulation by virtue of its abstract nature.  People can see a forest cut down, smell and see smog in the air, smell exhaust and see diesel soot, see dead fish in a harbor or a river on fire...ergo Clean Air and Water acts.  AGW by comparison is invisible and can only be detected statistically with a large sample of satellite based data.


----------



## begreen (Jul 21, 2017)

We have evidence of what may be climate change right in our front yard. 110' coastal redwood just can't make it anymore with consecutively hotter drier summers. I see several other trees giving up in our area too.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 22, 2017)

I read the Epa law was passed because states were ineffective

Speaking from what I remember, the public waterways were open sewers before the epa,by comparison those same ways I'm thinking of could be the garden of Eden supply now


----------



## EatenByLimestone (Jul 23, 2017)

I don't believe the environment is a liberal or conservative issue. We all live here. 

i think it's when politicians get involved that ears turn off.  When neighbors discuss mutual problems ears stay open.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 23, 2017)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I don't believe the environment is a liberal or conservative issue.



Well, it's pretty difficult to convince voters your party is pro-environment when every environmental regulation that is rolled back is cheered and every new environmental protection is jeered.

Oh, wait, that's right, we should leave protection of the environment to the free market. Yes, that's the ticket.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 23, 2017)

Its hard to believe what a few degrees difference can make , until you see  that a mere 2 Degrees C can wipe out  large chunks of coral reef.  In 2016 29% of the worlds coral reefs were lost.  Life expectancy on most of the rest is about 30 years.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its hard to believe what a few degrees difference can make , until you see  that a mere 2 Degrees C can wipe out  large chunks of coral reef.  In 2016 29% of the worlds coral reefs were lost.  Life expectancy on most of the rest is about 30 years.



Time to build some NEW reefs....

like rebuilding the reefs that used to run up and down the US East Coast, before they were all literally dredged up and sold in the 1800s.

https://www.billionoysterproject.org/


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Yes, there are a lot of fishermen and others that are quite conservative but firmly believe in preserving and protecting natural resources.QUOTE]



So you have a fisherman that is quite conservative but also firmly believes firmly in preservation?

You see how that confuses people? This guy who claims to be into preservation just stole a fish from the natural environment and killed it.

Conservation does not equal preservation. I am the conservation guy that wants to responsibly harvest fish/deer/firewood in such a way that the resource is not depleted. Preservation means I don't fish, as in, preserve every bit of what is there.

Am I just confused about the definitions or do these scientists screw it up too? In your quote above, replacing the word preserving with the word conserving would make the world right!


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

I have read many **scientific** articles that try to assign value to the goods (e.g. fish, drinking water) and services (e.g. pollution scrubbing by the atmosphere, etc) provided 'for free' by the earth, and it usually comes to a rather hefty figure, comparable to GDP.

The purpose, of course, is that people tend to value things, and sustain them and see them as important, in proportion to their dollar value.  What is the 'value' of the free rain, free sunshine and all the fishes in the sea.  Zero?  or priceless?


----------



## georgepds (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> replacing the word preserving with the word conserving would make the world right!



I don't know.. sounds like semantics more than any real difference  .. but I get what you mean. If we extract resources from the environment in such a way that the the environment in more or less preserved in it's original state, that's conservation/environmentalism

That said the government plays a role in conservation. If I'm in business, producing a pollutant as a by product, I'd have to dump my byproduct in the nearest stream, just like everyone else who makes a similar product, to stay competitive. But, if the government says , to me and all my competitors, no, no dumping allowed, it puts all at the same economic advantage, and preserves the common good: the clean stream

That's the reasoning from the view of the producer. From the innocent bystander just trying to fish the stream, or get a drink of water, it's protection of the common good


----------



## georgepds (Jul 24, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I have read many **scientific** articles that try to assign value to the goods (e.g. fish, drinking water) and services (e.g. pollution scrubbing by the atmosphere, etc) provided 'for free' by the earth, and it usually comes to a rather hefty figure, comparable to GDP.
> 
> The purpose, of course, is that people tend to value things, and sustain them and seem them as important, in proportion to their dollar value.  What is the 'value' of the free rain, free sunshine and all the fishes in the sea.  Zero?  or priceless?




$5.99 / lb for haddock at the Market basket
$6.59/ 1000 gallons  for water in the city of Boston
Sunshine buys me ~240 kwh/year-m^2 or ~ $48 worth of electricity

Rain is interesting.. in the East I can collect it in a rain barrel and use it at my discretion, in some places in the West I hear that I'm a lawbreaker if I try to use a rain barrel 

So.. a little between zero and priceless


~~~~~~~~~edit~~~~~~~~~~
 a note on CO2 cost courtesy of utility dive

In 1997, Minnesota set the cost at between $0.30/ton and $3.10/ton of carbon dioxide, and it still caps at less than $5/ton. The federal cost of carbon ranges from  $11/ton to $57/ton, reflecting social costs, and is frequently set at around $36/ton.

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/min...ing-states-cost-of-carbon-calculation/447612/


----------



## begreen (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> So you have a fisherman that is quite conservative but also firmly believes firmly in preservation?
> 
> You see how that confuses people? This guy who claims to be into preservation just stole a fish from the natural environment and killed it.
> 
> ...


Not really, his politics are conservative, but the person I am thinking about releases most of what he catches. Preservation does not mean do not fish. It means keep the balance, don't overfish to the point of species depletion. The plains Indians harvested buffalo regularly and yet the species thrived by the millions until the western world slaughtered them senselessly by the millions in a matter of a decade or two.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 24, 2017)

georgepds said:


> I don't know.. sounds like semantics more than any real difference  .. but I get what you mean. If we extract resources from the environment in such a way that the the environment in more or less preserved in it's original state, that's conservation/environmentalism
> 
> That said the government plays a role in conservation. If I'm in business, producing a pollutant as a by product, I'd have to dump my byproduct in the nearest stream, just like everyone else who makes a similar product, to stay competitive. But, if the government says , to me and all my competitors, no, no dumping allowed, it puts all at the same economic advantage, and preserves the common good: the clean stream
> 
> That's the reasoning from the view of the producer. From the innocent bystander just trying to fish the stream, or get a drink of water, it's protection of the common good



I would take it a step farther and propose that it is human nature to exploit the resource to maximize one's best interest. Meaning, if I found a pile of gold coins in the woods (symbolic of a resource), I would take every single one of those gold coins home and live happily ever after. Only when government intervenes and limits the rate of gold coins being taken to the rate that new gold coins fall out of the ferry butts can conservation be accomplished. Now leaving the pile of coins undisturbed is symbolic of preservation.


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> Preservation does not mean do not fish. It means keep the balance, don't overfish to the point of species depletion.



Nope, that's conservation. Preservation means no fishing. As in preserve.

Google:

Environmental *preservation* is the strict setting aside of natural *resources* to prevent the use or contact by humans or by human intervention. In terms of policy making this often means setting aside areas as nature reserves (otherwise known as wildlife reserves), parks, or other conservation areas.

Conservation:

The careful utilization of a natural resource in order to prevent depletion.


----------



## georgepds (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I would take it a step farther and propose that it is human nature to exploit the resource to maximize one's best interest. Meaning, if I found a pile of gold coins in the woods (symbolic of a resource), I would take every single one of those gold coins home and live happily ever after. Only when government intervenes and limits the rate of gold coins being taken to the rate that new gold coins fall out of the ferry butts can conservation be accomplished. Now leaving the pile of coins undisturbed is symbolic of preservation.



Not convinced that just leaving it alone is "best". Michael Pollan points out you can exploit the grass on high hills/mountains using sheep and goats. You extract meat and wool, the grass grows back, and if the sheep were not grazing, it might turn to bush ( in this case extraction equals preservation)

Sometimes you preserve by intervening. There's a great story about wolves changing the course of waters in Yosemite.. Once re-introduced they scared the deer from the streams, which let the water plants grow back, which altered the character of the waterways. No wolves, too many deer, overfeeding at the stream bank, and a mud run in  place of a  Yosemite stream

Now, at the other end of the spectrum is strip mining company that goes bankrupt. The mountain top is gone, and the government is left chasing successor companies to clean up the mess the mine tailings made. There preservation in the sense you use would be a great idea


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 24, 2017)

georgepds said:


> Not convinced that just leaving it alone is "best". Michael Pollan points out you can exploit the grass on high hills/mountains using sheep and goats. You extract meat and wool, the grass grows back, and if the sheep were not grazing, it might turn to bush ( in this case extraction equals preservation)
> 
> Sometimes you preserve by intervening. There's a great story about wolves changing the course of waters in Yosemite.. Once re-introduced they scared the deer from the streams, which let the water plants grow back, which altered the character of the waterways. No wolves, too many deer, overfeeding at the stream bank, and a mud run in  place of a  Yosemite stream
> 
> Now, at the other end of the spectrum is strip mining company that goes bankrupt. The mountain top is gone, and the government is left chasing successor companies to clean up the mess the mine tailings made. There preservation in the sense you use would be a great idea



Look closely at your examples and they each depended on human intervention causing and then "fixing" the problem. Preservation means no intervention.

The grass would have historically been bush had some intervention not stopped that natural progression already.

The wolves being removed in the first place by.... wait for it.... intervention.

Try to imagine the equilibrium reached over thousands of years of zero human intervention. It's too late in many cases, we've buggered it up already. To preserve that natural equilibrium requires us to stay out of it.


----------



## begreen (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Nope, that's conservation. Preservation means no fishing. As in preserve.


Fine, I should have said protecting instead of preserving. He has also agreed not to graze cattle on a portion of his land to preserve it for sage grouse. Point being, that there definitely are conservatives that still believe in protecting the environment.


----------



## bholler (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> Nope, that's conservation. Preservation means no fishing. As in preserve.
> 
> Google:
> 
> ...




You definition does not say that preservation sets aside all natural resources.  It can set aside a portion that cannot be touched but the rest can be utilized.  your definition even says that preservation utilizes conservation areas.  It is just semantics.  There are very few people that say do not use any resources.  But many who want our resources used responsibly


----------



## Highbeam (Jul 24, 2017)

bholler said:


> There are very few people that say do not use any resources. But many who want our resources used responsibly



I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.

Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.


----------



## bholler (Jul 24, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.
> 
> Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.


No it is not lazy it is realistic.  It is not black and white like you make it sound.  There are lots of people who want preserves and want untouched areas.  But that does not mean they dont want to use any recources.  And there are many conservationists like us who want to see untouched areas as well.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 25, 2017)

50 shades of green or 50 shades of black, maybe the same spectrum. Resources: no use in some areas, some use in all areas, full use to exhaustion in all areas regardless of the outcome.

I doubt there is a single honest person who both believes and behaves in full use of every source to the point of exhaustion in all areas regardless of the outcome. In one shade or another every honest person is to some extent a preservationist, a conservationist, and an exploiter. I doubt there is any person who on a personal level does not want safe and healthy water to drink, air to breathe, and food to eat, but at the same time I think every person exhibits behavior that denies that opportunity for other persons and other life forms which results in their sickness, pain, death, starvation and ultimately extinction. 

And some interesting questions: is it only humans who face this preservation, conservation, exhaustion question with the ability to make conscious choices that impact the outcome, both for themselves and other life forms? Or, do other life forms make conscious choices to also impact the outcome? And if it is only humans, are we to be the plague that exterminates life, including our own at some point, or the savior which nurtures and sustains life? Ultimately, does it make any difference? We all will die anyway regardless of our plague/savior choices, so why be concerned about what comes after our own life?

On this spectrum, personally I endeavor to align with the savior spectrum rather than the plague spectrum, and at the same time I acknowledge that if every person alive today consumes resources at the level that I do, human and most other life on this Earth is unsustainable. My consolation is that I consume far less resources than many others, and I continue to strive to consume even fewer resources. I pursue a moral ethic that indeed my choices do make a valuable difference for the benefit of others, and that by itself is a worthy goal for my life, regardless of what happens after my death.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 26, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> I am beginning to wonder if as a species we are suffering from some sort of meltdown hardwired into us.  Some sort of colony collapse after a certain population point is achieved.  We haven't had a big die-off in a while, so we might be due for one soon.  History is full of civilizations that suddenly disappear or self destruct.



You are not the only one to think so.. This line of thinking has been raised as the solution to the Fermi Paradox.... i.e. All advanced civilizations are doomed to self destruct.


----------



## jharkin (Jul 26, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Now it all makes sense.
> The telly is not the best way to be informed. It's all pretty bad but some are worse than others.
> Did you know that people whos only source of new was Fox are less informed than people who don't consume ANY tv news!
> http://www.businessinsider.com/stud...-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
> ...



Dont forget
8)  Distract them with complaints about " liberals stealing their money" with taxes.

i.e. came up in the very first post of this threa complaining about estate tax increases...   which of course only benefit the top .000001% of people in this country, i.e. nobody on this board.  And would actually make society more equal and stop the slide in to a gilded age neo -fuedalist culture of heriditary inhereted weath concentrated into a few "lords"

When one party has so thoroughly brainwashed the masses to vote against their own self interest what hope do we have?


woodgeek said:


> Not to my knowledge.
> 
> Thirty years ago a friend of mine went to (mainland) China for a a visit, and it was pretty broken down as a country. Her host family saw her ready to throw away the ziploc bags she had packed some stuff in....and they begged her to have them b/c they would use them to store things until they fell apart...nothing like that was available to them at the time.
> 
> ...


I've mentioned before that I've travelled to both China and India many times...  China is indeed RACING ahead of us on this front.  However keep in mind that these advances are concentrated into small areas of hte big industrial/commercial cities - Beijing, Shanghai, etc.  And they make these strides using techniques we would never stand for (the govt goes in and throws 100k people out of their homes and buldozes half the town to build new).

But they are getting it done. And we are not.


woodgeek said:


> DId anyone actually read the article?



I did.  Frankly I think its hopeless with the current USA mindset as long as the corporate, religious right and neo-Confedarate factions of the GOP still control Washington and most state houses.  Sadly the most you can say about the currently aimless Democrats in this regard is they are "less bad"  Maybe when all the boomers die off and us gen-Xers get old, the millennial and post millenials will step up and change politics so we do something about it, but its probably going to be too late by then.  My poor kids will live though the worst of it  

I'm probably going to get a moderator warning for this post but I'm just tired of playing nice and saying its all going to be OK when we know its not...

And no I didn't read all 5 pages... I can predict the ranting that occurred without wading through it all....


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 26, 2017)

Those on both sides of every issue think the other is wrecking the country. its not that black and white. More like 50 shades of grey.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 26, 2017)

jharkin said:


> You are not the only one to think so.. This line of thinking has been raised as the solution to the Fermi Paradox.... i.e. All advanced civilizations are doomed to self destruct.


The worst is yet to come , as the population increases,the planet warms and crops fail, the storms destroy and if we ever stop pumping money into these unsustainable islands of despair.


----------



## begreen (Jul 26, 2017)

As long as the prime motivator is "what's in it for me" humankind is destined to create its own miserable extinction. This lonely, tiny spaceship we are on is one of finite resources. Ultimately nature is going to win, time is on her side. Men think in terms of lifetimes, nature has millenia to rebalance the equation. It's very rare for human societies to construct harmonious systems designed for multiple generations. Yes, there are a few good examples, but it is rare and almost non-existent in modern industrialized nations.


----------



## begreen (Jul 26, 2017)

Highbeam said:


> I'm one of the "use it responsibly" people also known as conservationists. I feel like we're the majority but am often surprised at how many folks want things left totally alone even when they enjoy the use of the resource indirectly. For example, people don't like logging but then picket your forestry operation with paper signs.
> 
> Calling something "just semantics" is a lame and a lazy tactic to avoid thinking. No, it's vocabulary. If you don't know what the words mean then don't use them.


One has to look no further than the economy for where one sets up funds for "preservation of capital" while drawing a sustainable income. The same can apply to a woodlot or a herd of buffalo. Nature does this all the time. When the herd gets too large, predators trim it down to a sustainable size.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 26, 2017)

begreen said:


> . It's very rare for human societies to construct harmonious systems designed for multiple generations. Yes, there are a few good examples, but it is rare and almost non-existent in modern industrialized nations.


Ours only seems to work with endless growth.


----------



## begreen (Jul 26, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Ours only seems to work with endless growth.


Flawed by design and like a snake eating its tail, destined to fail.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 26, 2017)

jharkin said:


> Frankly I think its hopeless with the current USA mindset as long as the corporate, religious right and neo-Confedarate factions of the GOP still control Washington and most state houses.  Sadly the most you can say about the currently aimless Democrats in this regard is they are "less bad"  Maybe when all the boomers die off and us gen-Xers get old, the millennial and post millenials will step up and change politics so we do something about it, but its probably going to be too late by then.  My poor kids will live though the worst of it



Actually I think politics usually changes pretty fast.  Both parties are quite broken down now (not false equivalence, but stating that their major motivations and ideas are exhausted).  We tend to get some reorganization when this happens every couple generations.  While I think POTUS will do little good on the climate front for the next few years, I think we could be as surprised by the politics the Gens X and Y give us in the next 5-10 years, as we were by 2016.  

But there I go being Polyanna again in my penance thread....


----------



## jharkin (Jul 26, 2017)

^^^  All true.  Its not all 'that' party of course.  I was even a member of 'that' party before the extreme right took it over.  But the current white house is not going to do diddly.

And I'll give you that the other party mainstream are no saints either... 

And i was in a grumpy mood today...

And I have some guilt because I'm certainly not doing all I could do myself...


carry on


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 26, 2017)

We rolled the dice with WWII and survived.  We rolled the dice during the cold war and survived the brink of nuclear war.  Now we are rolling the dice again with global warming and hoping that the next generations will able to fix it if enough will and breakthrough technologies are applied.  As any gambler will tell you, eventually your luck runs out.

And just think, all three of these events happened (are happening) within the span of 100 years - a very small amount of time in human history.  It is bonkers.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 26, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> We rolled the dice with WWII and survived.



Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice. We took action. Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency does not seem to be present with the threat of global warming even though it poses an even greater threat than even the war mongering Nazis with an agenda of world domination.  

The difference being that it was considered unpatriotic to oppose the WWII effort. Today some fools think taking steps to reduce the speed and severity of global warming is un-American. Remember the political slogan "Drill, baby, drill!"? That wasn't very long ago. Actually, some people still think that's what American patriotism should be about. Seriously. There is no need to wonder why American politics are so FU. Yes, because of American voters.



> And just think, all three of these events happened (are happening) within the span of 100 years - a very small amount of time in human history.  It is bonkers.



100 years is a miniscule amount of time in terms of human history. In terms of the natural history of the world it's almost an infinitesimally small amount of time. And in terms of the history of the universe, it's basically a single point in time. 

Wow! Just think. Our whole solar system could be one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being!


----------



## vinny11950 (Jul 27, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice.



I meant as in the human race.  We are all on this tiny planet together with nowhere else to go.  As the world population grows, travel gets faster, and we get more interconnected with mobile devices, this place is gonna feel a lot smaller.  Add in some climate upheaval and we are going to see millions of people migrating to survive.  Humans have been doing it forever.

And yes, Animal House is a great movie


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 27, 2017)

bholler said:


> No it is not lazy it is realistic.  It is not black and white like you make it sound.  There are lots of people who want preserves and want untouched areas.  But that does not mean they dont want to use any recources.  And there are many conservationists like us who want to see untouched areas as well.


That's cool.  Buy land and don't touch it, like my grandfather did.  
He was a true conservationist.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 27, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Correction. We only rolled the dice with WWII until we were attacked and decided the threat was too real to continue rolling the dice. We took action. Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency does not seem to be present with the threat of global warming even though it poses an even greater threat than even the war mongering Nazis with an agenda of world domination.



Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.  

Funny you mention war.  War has got to be the biggest polluter of all time.  Yet, both sides of the political spectrum worship war and only have a problem when the other side is waging it.  Sad.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 27, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.



Excuse me, what did I say repeatedly that wasn't factual?


----------



## begreen (Jul 31, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Saying things over and over as if they are fact only works on kids.


Standard marketing technique often targeted at adults. Fox News does it every day. 

More data and forecasts in from two independent studies. It's going to get hot out there. Portland, OR is set to break its all time record hottest day record on Thurs. (110F forecast) and the year 2100 is 83 yrs away.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/health/climate-change-two-degrees-studies/index.html


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 31, 2017)

begreen said:


> Standard marketing technique often targeted at adults. Fox News does it every day.



True, and it's shocking how effective it is (at least with their target audience).


----------



## begreen (Jul 31, 2017)

It's worked to sell everything from cigarettes to cars to wars.


----------



## NateB (Jul 31, 2017)

To global warming to single payer...  see it works both ways.  The objective should be to find a solution to the problem (which in most cases involves defining the problem properly) not belittling your opposition. I see lots of governments and corporations coming up with solutions that don't solve the problems, but do make a select group people of richer.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 31, 2017)

A: Do you smell smoke?
B: No.
A: Do you smell smoke?
B: Nope.
A: Do you smell smoke?
B: Nope!
A: Are you sure you don't smell smoke?
B: Ummm......
A: FIRE!
B: I knew it!  I smelled smoke beforehand, dontcha know!


----------



## semipro (Jul 31, 2017)

I was wondering yesterday how much impact the air's capacity to hold water versus its temperature would have on surface and ground waters?  That is, as overall temps increase more water is held in the atmosphere. 
Its seems many places are experiencing some level of drought whereas I thought that the lower precipitations predicted for the west would result in more water falling on the east -- but that doesn't appear to be happening.  Though we're having periodic rainfalls that are keeping things green here in VA, many ponds and streams are way low. 
Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot of changes this year as far as weather, growing season and crop yields, vegetation types (more poison ivy, ugh),  rainfall patterns, etc.  I hope these changes are short- rather than long-term but I'm concerned.  I've seen many reports of climate models underestimating probable impacts.


----------



## NateB (Jul 31, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> A: Do you smell smoke?
> B: No.
> A: Do you smell smoke?
> B: Nope.
> ...



That tells me all I needed to know.

Thanks


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 1, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> True, and it's shocking how effective it is (at least with their target audience).[/QUOTE
> All the news channels do this,if your bent too far one way you wont see it.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 1, 2017)

All the news channels do this ,if your bent too far one way yo wont see it.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> All the news channels do this,if your bent too far one way you wont see it.



True in abstract, but there are differences of degree that make all the difference.

Just look at the Poliitfact scores for the various Networks

Fox - only 40% true/partially true    
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

CNN - 73% true/partially ture
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

NBC - 58%
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fnbc/

To find a "liberal source" who stretches the truth to the left  as badly as Fox does to the right  you would have to look at HuffPost or something even to the left of them, but Politifact doesn't have an overall summary rating I can check.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 1, 2017)

Are there any real news shows left at all anymore, cuz what i see are political opinion shows.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 1, 2017)

Simple research helps me determine if a story is true or not.  I am not a scientist, so I believe the overwhelming science community when they say it is real.  I can read the charts and measurements posted on reputable sites like NOAA.  Over the years, I have read the counter arguments, but they usually rely on a misrepresentation of data or some weird event theory - it falls apart on closer scrutiny and then another crazy talking point is created to keep the argument going.  They are trying to run out the clock on the debate until we reach the point when the general consensus is going to be "it's too late to do anything about it so why change."  Unfortunately, it's working.  Any body here know about the Dunning Kruger effect that is being talked about lately?


----------



## semipro (Aug 1, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Any body here know about the Dunning Kruger effect that is being talked about lately?


Yeah, its the concept that the more ignorant someone is the more confident they are in their opinions.  
Its seems way more relevant of late that it used to be.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 1, 2017)

Only a few moderates left in both parties. Not enough to get anything done on most issue. Gridlock in the foreseeable future.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

One silver lining I hope for from the current political situation is an object lesson in the Dunning Kruger effect that will make it universally understood.

And single payer.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 1, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Are there any real news shows left at all anymore, cuz what i see are political opinion shows.



I've been watching One America News network, and enjoying their pseudo-Euro format.  More news, less opinion.  Occasional history lessons as transitional pieces.


----------



## bholler (Aug 1, 2017)

Ashful said:


> I've been watching One America News network, and enjoying their pseudo-Euro format.  More news, less opinion.  Occasional history lessons as transitional pieces.


yes one american news is pretty good definitely a conservative slant but their info is accurate and well presented.  I feel npr is the same just on the liberal side.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 1, 2017)

Vice news online and on HBO is pretty in depth.  They get reporters on the ground in conflict areas and let them report.  That is something I don't see as much from the network news shows.  They have done some great segments on climate change.



At the 20 minute mark they debunk the talking point that antartica sea ice is growing that is used by many climate change deniers.  But holy hell, it takes a freaking airplane full of scientist carefully measuring ice change to prove the obvious.  It is exhausting work that gets you nowhere because people don't want to believe it.  For the deniers, the argument has become an article of faith, cynicism and anger all rolled into one.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 1, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Simple research helps me determine if a story is true or not.  I am not a scientist, so I believe the overwhelming science community when they say it is real.  I can read the charts and measurements posted on reputable sites like NOAA.  Over the years, I have read the counter arguments, but they usually rely on a misrepresentation of data or some weird event theory - it falls apart on closer scrutiny and then another crazy talking point is created to keep the argument going.  They are trying to run out the clock on the debate until we reach the point when the general consensus is going to be "it's too late to do anything about it so why change."  Unfortunately, it's working.  Any body here know about the Dunning Kruger effect that is being talked about lately?



Oh yeah, Dunning Kruger is alive an well.  Lets not also forget that the "all news is fake news" and "everybody lies"  are deliberate tactic to desensitize us to the lies one side is pushing...


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 1, 2017)

It is hard to believe that a century and more ago Americans were famously down to earth and skeptical....like the 'show me' state.

Now we are leaders (and innovators) in the belief and promulgation of a lot of nonsense the rest of the world just shakes their head at.


----------



## semipro (Aug 1, 2017)

As a species, collectively, we're not very good with our perception of long term threats. 
I remember my amazement in the revelation that this was identified as a matter of national security more than 50 years ago by (real scientific) advisers to then president LBJ.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ident-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today


----------



## begreen (Aug 1, 2017)

50 yrs ago there were science advisors to the prez and cabinet. Now the cabinet holds regular bible classes instead.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 1, 2017)

Our Govt and most of those in charge are guilty of being short sighted. Climate change is a perfect example. but it soaks into all things. We can make a long list of things promoted by both sides that are simply unsustainable. And things that cannot continue eventually do not. Where is the green party?


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 2, 2017)

semipro said:


> I was wondering yesterday how much impact the air's capacity to hold water versus its temperature would have on surface and ground waters?  That is, as overall temps increase more water is held in the atmosphere.
> .


Were more than 6 times the avg.  rainfall for July . June was above avg too.  Seeing heavier and more often downpours than usual.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 2, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Our Govt and most of those in charge are guilty of being short sighted. Climate change is a perfect example. but it soaks into all things. We can make a long list of things promoted by both sides that are simply unsustainable. And things that cannot continue eventually do not. Where is the green party?



I'm lost. Can we get some examples of equivalently non-sustainable things....ideas promulgated by different parties or other vested interests, that will destroy the biosphere in < 100 years??

Many things are said to be unsustainable **economically**, but I am yet to see an economic issue that didn't have at least 4 completely different sets of opinions....all which make a good case.


----------



## begreen (Aug 2, 2017)

Borrowing against the future at an increasingly agressive rate. Today we are on this year's deficit. 
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-earth-resource-spent-august.html


----------



## begreen (Aug 2, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I'm lost. Can we get some examples of equivalently non-sustainable things....ideas promulgated by different parties or other vested interests, that will destroy the biosphere in < 100 years??
> 
> Many things are said to be unsustainable **economically**, but I am yet to see an economic issue that didn't have at least 4 completely different sets of opinions....all which make a good case.


Global coal and gas energy production are unsustainable at current rates. Soil depletion by large scale, chemical based agribiz probably fits under this category too.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 2, 2017)

The list is long and one by one each one will end, probably with many negative consequences that could have seen a much better outcome with a little planning  and long term thinking. Just my 2c for what its worth, probably just that.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 2, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I'm lost. Can we get some examples of equivalently non-sustainable things....ideas promulgated by different parties or other vested interests, that will destroy the biosphere in < 100 years??



I can only think of one.

Birth control that relies solely on abstinence.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 2, 2017)

meanwhile an update on the global government effort to control it,http://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 2, 2017)

Doug MacIVER said:


> meanwhile an update on the global government effort to control it,http://www.nature.com/news/prove-paris-was-more-than-paper-promises-1.22378



IMHO, the fact that the emissions targets were simply goals, and not mandated standards, is all the more reason the U.S. should have supported the process instead of quitting without good reason. Now other countries can place blame for any failure squarely on the United States having disrespected the goals of limiting the potentially devastating effects of global warming.


----------



## semipro (Aug 3, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Were more than 6 times the avg.  rainfall for July . June was above avg too.  Seeing heavier and more often downpours than usual.


Maybe a microclimate thing then?  We're not far from your location.  Our weather patterns have definitely changed though, at least short term.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 3, 2017)

There are lots of non-sustainable uses of our natural resources.  Indefinate, unlimited population and consumption growth on a planite with finite resources is by its basic nature unsustainable.  I dont understand why that is so hard to grasp for so many...


----------



## jharkin (Aug 3, 2017)

semipro said:


> Maybe a microclimate thing then?  We're not far from your location.  Our weather patterns have definitely changed though, at least short term.



Could be... But there is definately and increase in the extremes and year to year variability.  Last year we had the worst drought I can ever remember, and this year we are having the wettest summer in decades.  Similarly winters seem to swing from no snow at all to 10 feet  with nothing in between.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 3, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Ah, the good old days of the Ash Can where feelings got hurt.
> 
> Where have you been, Doug?  Haven't seen you post in some time.  Hope all is well.


been fine, thnx for asking. hope you are as well and enjoying a LI summer. the AC days ,ah yes. fun times 


vinny11950 said:


> Ah, the good old days of the Ash Can where feelings got hurt.
> 
> Where have you been, Doug?  Haven't seen you post in some time.  Hope all is well.


don't comment much as Jeremy said" I DID START IT"  have a day


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 3, 2017)

Needless to say, AGW threads always get a bit rowdier, and I started this one so I can't complain.  That said....I still think that current US politics is a bit _OT_.

I don't have any problem discussing the issues with a thoughtful skeptic. I haven't seen any real trolling behavior here....except when I get close to doing it myself.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 3, 2017)

semipro said:


> Maybe a microclimate thing then?  We're not far from your location.  Our weather patterns have definitely changed though, at least short term.


This summer seems cooler than usual even though t the avg in the area say otherwise. Benn getting quite a few nights in the upper 50s ,not common this time of year.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 3, 2017)

Doug MacIVER said:


> been fine, thnx for asking. hope you are as well and enjoying a LI summer. the AC days ,ah yes. fun times
> 
> don't comment much as Jeremy said" I DID START IT"  have a day



Summer is nice right now.  I got the windows open, and the fans going.  Enough to keep me cool.  I kind of like being hot and sweating in the summer - it makes it feel like summer.  I don't get people having to be in 72 degree environments all the time, even while driving down the highway on a mild evening.  I like the warm breeze, the smell of summer, so I roll the windows down.  I do use AC, but not all the time.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 3, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> Summer is nice right now.  I got the windows open, and the fans going.  Enough to keep me cool.  I kind of like being hot and sweating in the summer - it makes it feel like summer.  I don't get people having to be in 72 degree environments all the time, even while driving down the highway on a mild evening.  I like the warm breeze, the smell of summer, so I roll the windows down.  I do use AC, but not all the time.


AC(ash can)??  weather wise I'm a dew pt. hater, can't stand anything over 65*dp.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 3, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I don't have any problem discussing the issues with a thoughtful skeptic. I haven't seen any real trolling behavior here....except when I get close to doing it myself.



Its ok, I probably troll a lot too... i just trolled Ash above but that doesnt mean I have any personal hard feelings against him -in fact we have lots of shared interests and have had wonderful conversations on many a topic. I would happily host a brew with him any day.


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 3, 2017)

Sort of back on topic, yesterday was Earth Overshoot day if you believe it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/earth-overshoot-day:-today-the-earth-goes-into-the-red/8770040

They even have a personal calculator and it told me I would need 3.6 earths for my needs.  Though their calculations seem questionable I guess the 1996 Jeep Cherokee is killing my efficiency even if I barely drive it.


----------



## Ashful (Aug 3, 2017)

...as I'm hoisting a brew (Curmudgeon) while reading this.  [emoji14]


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2017)

POV from an astrophysicist. Why we are naively optimistic on this topic. 
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/20...e-are-naively-optimistic-about-climate-change


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 3, 2017)

Ashful said:


> ...as I'm hoisting a brew (Curmudgeon) while reading this.  [emoji14]


And i "ballast point " California Kolsh.


----------



## begreen (Aug 3, 2017)

Thread has gone to drinking and politics and so ends an interesting discussion.


----------

